CAC The NewsThe CACNews, ISSN 1525-3090, is published quarterly (January, April, July, and October)...

CACNewsCACNewsTTTTThhhhheeeee

News of the California Association of Criminalists • Second Quarter 2000News of the California Association of Criminalists • Second Quarter 2000

B

HIRAM��

Challenges & Blessings in 2000

SWGDRUG hasannounced their

intent to take their“guidelines” to

ASCLD/LAB foradoption, at whichpoint they become

so much morethan guidelines.

Both Y2K and February 29, 2000 have come and gonewith more Sturm und Drang than true substance, but early2000 has brought challenges to this Association unrelated tothe calendar.

Proposition 15. The March 7 ballot will allow thePeople of California to vote with their wallets on the need ofimprovement in the physical facilitiesfor local forensic science laboratoriesthrough the Hertzberg-PolancoCrime Laboratories ConstructionBond Act of 1999. Taxpayers through-out the state have supported the DOJ’sBureau of Forensic Services laboratorysystem for 20+ years, many of themalso supporting their local police, sher-iff, or district attorney’s crime labora-tory all the while. While it would, in anideal world, be local taxpayers locallysupporting those things on which theyset priorities, Prop 15 has the oppor-tunity to provide new or remodeledphysical plants for locations whichhave not responded to the needs oftheir laboratories. The CAC will urgethe governor to appoint a representa-tive of this association to the forensiclaboratories authorities, which will de-termine the priorities for spendingfrom the bond act’s funds.

Reform of Alcohol Regulation.The Public Health Liaison Committeein the person of Jeff Thompson, rep-resenting both CAC and CACLD, hasworked hard to draft language for abill that has been sponsored by StateSenator Ross Johnson as SB 1849. Thisbill would require DoHS to: 1) reviseregulations by July 1, 2002, incorpo-rating the Model Specifications forEvidential Breath Testing Devices andModel Specifications for CalibratingUnits for Breath Alcohol Testers pub-lished by the National Highway Traf-fic Safety Administration, only afterconvening the review committee, 2)continue to provide proficiency test-ing samples, 3) convene the review committee before July 1,2001 and at least once every five years thereafter, with mem-bers of the committee to include representatives ofcriminalists and forensic laboratory managers, 4) limit theregulation to requirements the review committee determinesare necessary, 5) allow licensees or ASCLD/LAB accreditedlaboratories to perform BA analysis, 6) allow breath testingusing the Model Specifications, above, 7) license ASCLD/LAB accredited laboratories.

Again, the CAC will urge the appointment of a represen-tative of this Association to the Review Committee, which willstatutorily set priorities for DoHS

“Crystal Wars.” SWGDRUG’s latest proposal on meth-ods excludes the use of microcrystal tests as a confirmatoryidentification. Numerous laboratories which use this validated

technique in order to provide timely re-ports on many cases for their clients havewritten in opposition to these “guide-lines.” I hasten to add that SWGDRUGhas announced their intent to take their“guidelines” to ASCLD/LAB for adop-tion, at which point they become somuch more than guidelines. CAC as anassociation has written in opposition tothe proposal, making it clear to ASCLD/LAB that these guidelines do NOT con-stitute a consensus in California, whoselaboratories are leaders in accreditationand where there are more certifiedcriminalists here than in any other state.

A Home for CAC. The latest chal-lenge being considered by the membersof the board of directors is the need for ahome for the association. As we near our50th Anniversary, the need for a homefor historical archives, corporate andmembership records, and donations oflibrary materials becomes more press-ing. Committees are now being sur-veyed to determine their needs for stor-age space before the decision is made ona home for the association.

As an association and a profession,we continue to enjoy the blessingsbrought us by the Reed and VirginiaMcLaughlin Endowment, whichthrough growth and income, will pro-vide funds akin to $90,000 for scholar-ships, research, and training in 2000. Asa matter of perspective, this amount isapproximately half the principal of theForensic Sciences Foundation!

And finally, we have the opportu-nity in May to renew acquaintances withour colleagues from the Forensic Science

Society, add to our technical expertise, and share with them thenatural beauties, both visual and oenological, of the Napa Val-ley at the Spring Seminar.

The CACNews, ISSN 1525-3090, is published quarterly (January, April, July, and October) by the California Association of Criminalists (CAC), Editorial Secretary, CaDOJFresno, 6014 N Cedar Ave., Fresno, CA 93710, (559) 278-2982, [email protected]. The CAC is a private foundation dedicated to the furtherance of forensicscience in both the public and private sectors. Nonmember subscriptions are available for $16 domestic, $20USD foreign—contact the Editorial Secretary for moreinformation.Please direct editorial correspondence and requests for reprints to the Editorial Secretary.

©2000 The California Association of Criminalists, All Rights Reserved.

Notice to Contributors: We publish material of interest to our readers and are pleased to receive manuscripts from potential authors. Meetings and course announcements,employment opportunities, etc. are also solicited. Advertisements are also accepted, although a fee is charged for their inclusion in The CACNews. Please contact theAdvertising Editor for further information. Because of the computerized typesetting employed in The CACNews, submissions should be made in the form of MS-DOScompatible files on 3.5 inch floppy disks or by e-mail ([email protected]). Text files from word processors should be saved as ASCII files without formattingcodes, e.g. bold, italic, etc. An accompanying hardcopy of the file should be submitted along with the disk. Graphics, sketches, photographs, etc. may also be placed into articles.Please contact the Editorial Secretary for details. The deadlines for submissions are: Dec. 1, March 1, June 1 and Sept. 1.

Editor-in-Chief: Nancy McCombs(559) [email protected]

Art Director: John Houde / Calico Press,LLC(805) [email protected]

Features: Greg Matheson(213) [email protected]

Webmaster: Mark Traughber(909) [email protected]

Advertising: Frank Healy(559) [email protected]

Technical: Suzanne Preaseaux(707) [email protected]

2 The Pres ident’s DeskThe Pres ident’s DeskThe Pres ident’s DeskThe Pres ident’s DeskThe Pres ident’s DeskHiram Evans

4 CACBits / Section ReportsCACBits / Section ReportsCACBits / Section ReportsCACBits / Section ReportsCACBits / Section Reports

5 Jobs / Meetings / CoursesJobs / Meetings / CoursesJobs / Meetings / CoursesJobs / Meetings / CoursesJobs / Meetings / CoursesPositions Wanted / Offered

7 Ed i to r ia lEd i to r ia lEd i to r ia lEd i to r ia lEd i to r ia lNancy McCombs / Feedback

11 FSS Anniversary Resolut ionFSS Anniversary Resolut ionFSS Anniversary Resolut ionFSS Anniversary Resolut ionFSS Anniversary Resolut ion

12 Candidate’s StatementsCandidate’s StatementsCandidate’s StatementsCandidate’s StatementsCandidate’s StatementsCAC Board of Directors

13 Alcohol Test ing ReformAlcohol Test ing ReformAlcohol Test ing ReformAlcohol Test ing ReformAlcohol Test ing ReformProposed law discussed

15 AAFS Reno: A Jackpot of a MeetingAAFS Reno: A Jackpot of a MeetingAAFS Reno: A Jackpot of a MeetingAAFS Reno: A Jackpot of a MeetingAAFS Reno: A Jackpot of a Meeting

16 What is a Criminalist?What is a Criminalist?What is a Criminalist?What is a Criminalist?What is a Criminalist?Comments from the internet

18 Q&A: How Can the Percentages ofQ&A: How Can the Percentages ofQ&A: How Can the Percentages ofQ&A: How Can the Percentages ofQ&A: How Can the Percentages ofBlended Fibers be Determined?Blended Fibers be Determined?Blended Fibers be Determined?Blended Fibers be Determined?Blended Fibers be Determined?James Roberts

19 Quality AssuredQuality AssuredQuality AssuredQuality AssuredQuality AssuredJohn Simms

20 Fire ScenesFire ScenesFire ScenesFire ScenesFire ScenesPhotos from Dr. John DeHaan’s recent class

21 Weasel Words I I : Further Ins ightWeasel Words I I : Further Ins ightWeasel Words I I : Further Ins ightWeasel Words I I : Further Ins ightWeasel Words I I : Further Ins ightInto the “Similar to and Consis-Into the “Similar to and Consis-Into the “Similar to and Consis-Into the “Similar to and Consis-Into the “Similar to and Consis-tent Wi th” Di lemmatent Wi th” Di lemmatent Wi th” Di lemmatent Wi th” Di lemmatent Wi th” Di lemmaCommentary by Brent Turvey

23 Book Rev iewBook Rev iewBook Rev iewBook Rev iewBook Rev iew“The Sceptical Witness” by Stuart Kind is reviewedby Doug Lucas

24 Reference Ammunit ion for Gun-Reference Ammunit ion for Gun-Reference Ammunit ion for Gun-Reference Ammunit ion for Gun-Reference Ammunit ion for Gun-shot Res idue Test ingshot Res idue Test ingshot Res idue Test ingshot Res idue Test ingshot Res idue Test ingLucien Haag

32 Tongue-in-CheekTongue-in-CheekTongue-in-CheekTongue-in-CheekTongue-in-CheekCourtroom Calamities / Unusual Meth Lab

Second Quarter 2000

P U B L I C A T I O N S T A F F

CACNewsTheTheTheTheThe

C O N T E N T SC O N T E N T S

On the cover: Having reached “flashover,”this training fire burns furiously. It will beallowed to go another minute or two beforebeing extinguished. More training firepictures inside. Photo: John Houde/Calico Press

4 • The CACNews 2nd Quarter 2000

CACBits • Section News

��

��

�� The CACNews welcomes Frank

Healy and Suzanne Preaseaux to the Pub-lications Committee. Frank will assist inhunting down advertisers to help offsetprinting costs and Suzanne will reviewtechnical articles and work with authorsto maintain the high quality of our news-letter.

�� The So-Cal Arson Analysts and the

NorCal Arson Seminars will be joiningforces for the first time in a joint meeting.The California Arson Seminar will be heldat the Embassy Suites, San Luis Obispo,CA, June 15-16, 2000. Some of the topicsthat will be discussed include: latest CTStest, report writing, ASTM 1387 changes,setting up for arson analysis, and accredi-tation with ASCLD-LAB. Who should at-tend: arson analysts, case reviewers, peergroup members, and any person inter-ested in pursuing a career in arson analy-sis. Cost for this event is $185 includingroom and board.

Please contact Collin Yamauchi at

(213) 847-0052, e-mail:[email protected] or BradJohnson at (916) 874-9240, e-mail:[email protected] for moreinformation.

�� See us at www.cacnews.org

memorize your best facts.No matter how important your

scientific findings may be, they are not aspowerful unless you can convey the sig-nificance of your results in a competent,professional and understandable manner.

This seminar will teach the expertshow to effectively discuss your qualifica-tions as an expert witness, project yourexpertise to the jury and withstand therigors of cross-examination.

�� The University of Florida is offer-

ing a Forensic Toxicology Certificate pro-gram which is web based. For more in-formation look at the following site. http://www.nfstc.org/

Kevin Lothridge, Director of Stra-tegic Development, National ForensicScience Technology Center, 3200 34thStreet South, St. Petersburg, Florida33711. Phone 727-549-6067 Fax 727-549-6070

�� !��Broward County Sheriff’s Office,

Ft. Lauderdale, Florida.SALARY RANGE $35,627 - $52,637Under general supervision, the

purpose of this position is to analyze andenhance videotapes, still photographs anddigital images used in criminal investiga-tions. Employees in this classification per-form specialized technical work in therepair, reconstruction, and authenticity ofaudio and videotape evidence. Other du-ties include the digital processing and en-hancement of latent fingerprints. Positionis responsible for the formal reporting ofand testifying in court to the findings ofsuch analysis. Tasks involve the ability toexert heavy physical effort with greateremphasis on climbing and balancing, buttypically involve some combination ofstooping, kneeling, crouching, and crawl-ing. May occasionally involve heavier ob-jects and materials up to 100 pounds.NOTE: A more detailed description of theduties required in this position is avail-able upon request from Human Re-sources.

Requires bachelor’s degree in thenatural or physical sciences, criminalistics,engineering, mathematics, audio/visualproduction or a closely related field;supplemented by laboratory experience;forensic laboratory experience preferred.Requires any equivalent combination ofeducation, training, and experience may

��"�� #�� $��%�� #��On January 12, 2000 the Los Ange-

les Police Department hosted the first din-ner meeting of the “new” millenium. Themeeting was held at the San AntonioWinery and featured Jim Druzik, SeniorScientist, from the Getty Museum. Thetopic concerned the identification andpreservation of historical artifacts. Thedinner meeting was attended by over 70criminalists who were treated to an ex-cellent presentation. Joe Hourigan andWarren Loomis are to be thanked for theirefforts in putting together this meeting.All of the study groups met. ReportedlyJerry Massetti’s presentation at the drugstudy group about SWGDRUG generatedthe most discussion.

The next meeting will be hosted byKern County Lab in Bakersfield. GregLaskowski is the contact for this meet-ing. The meeting is tentatively scheduledfor March 24. It will be a luncheon meet-ing. All of the study groups will be in-vited and the first meeting of the crimescene study group is planned.

At the next board meeting, a sug-gestion of changing the format of themeetings and study groups to luncheonmeetings versus dinner meetings will bediscussed.

—Jim StamSouthern Regional Director

��"�� The NWAFS is planning a meeting

at the Radisson in Sacramento, CA, May15-19, 2000 .

The Spring 2000 NWAFS meetingin Sacramento, CA will be a different styleof meeting than we normally have. Thismeeting will be a weeks worth of WORK-SHOPS!!!

Along with the great workshopsthat are scheduled there will be a postersession on Tuesday night, a Bring-Your-Own-Slides Wednesday night and the tra-ditional banquet Thursday night. Asmeeting info gets solidified, the web sitewill be updated:

http://members.aol.com/lctox/spr00.htm

Anyone wishing more informationon the workshops offered should con-tact Lisa Caughlin or phone (916) 874-9240.

&�� '�� "�� Hosted by: Oregon State Police

Forensic Division April 19 and 20th, 2000Greenwood Inn, Beaverton.

Nationally renowned Speakers: CarolHenderson and Roger J. Dodd

Guest Speakers: Michael Schrunk,Multnomah Co. D. A. , Dale Penn, MarionCo. D.A., Bob Hermann, Washington Co.D.A. & Barry Scheldahl, Asst. U. S. Atty.

This unique seminar will teach youhow to integrate the following tools intoyour next case:

· Goals and methods for effectivedirect examination of your experts.

· Stunning cross-examination of thedefense experts.

· Train your expert witness to usevocabulary that sells your theory to thejury.

· Use trilogies to cause jurors to

(Accuracy not verified)

5

Jobs • Meetings • Courses

Collin Yamauchi (LAPD Crime Lab)hands out samples of crude oil at a recentmeeting of the Southern Section of the ArsonStudy Group. Collin notes that some of thesamples, gathered from around the world, areso light that they could power a gasoline en-gine without refining.

substitute for noted requirements. Suchexperience must be clearly documentedfor consideration.

Location is the Department of LawEnforcement/Crime Scene, 201 Southeast6 Street, Fort Lauderdale, Florida. Theposition is open until filled

Applications may be obtained andmust be received in Human Resources,Ron Cochran Public Safety Building, 2601West Broward Boulevard, Fort Lauder-dale, Florida 33312, by the closing date. Aresume may accompany a complete ap-plication. INCOMPLETE APPLICATIONSWILL NOT BE PROCESSED. Job Line:(888) 276-7827. Web Site: www.sheriff.org

�� (� ��The Northern Illinois Police Crime

Laboratory, a full service ASCLD/LABaccredited laboratory that services ap-proximately 40 police departments inLake and Cook counties of Illinois, is seek-ing a forensic biologist. The successfulapplicant will be responsible for the fol-lowing duties: Identification and collec-tion of body fluids from items of evidence;DNA analysis of biological evidence us-ing STRs and capillary electrophoresis;Preparation of written reports of findingsand opinions; Testifying to results in court;Participation in research and validation

studies; Training police and medical per-sonnel regarding evidence collection tech-niques; Assisting law enforcement offic-ers at crime scenes.

The successful applicant must at aminimum possess a Bachelor’s degree inbiological, chemical or forensic science(Masters of Science or Doctor of Philoso-phy is highly desirable). Additionally,applicants that have completed coursesin genetics, biochemistry, and molecularbiology (in compliance with DAB) will re-ceive foremost consideration.

Preference will be given to indi-viduals with experience using the ABI 310and/or previous court testimony as anexpert witness.

Salary Range: Commensurate withexperience.

Please submit a letter of applica-tion and detailed resume to the follow-ing address: Peter Yallaly, Northern Illi-nois Police Crime Laboratory, 1677 OldDeerfield Road, Highland Park, Illinois60035. Phone (847) 432-8160 Fax (847)432-5199 e-mail [email protected]

�� )� ��!� �� The National Forensic Science Tech-

nology Center (NFSTC) expects to needseveral forensic quality consultants in thenext several months. The incumbents willbe responsible for supporting theNFSTC’s Crime Laboratory quality sup-port programs, including the new stateforensic services planning program.

The ideal consultant will have asound awareness of quality systems inforensic science including the ASCLD/LAB and ISO accreditation programs.

To work on the forensic servicesplanning program the consultant musthave experience in Forensic Laboratorymanagement.

Please let us know if you are inter-ested in being considered for a consult-ant position. Please send a resume and ashort description of why you are inter-ested to Dr William J Tilstone, Executive

Director NFSTC, 3200 34th Street South,St Petersburg FL, or by e-mail [email protected].

Kevin Lothridge, Director of Stra-tegic Development, National ForensicScience Technology Center, 3200 34thStreet South, St. Petersburg, Florida33711. Phone 727-549-6067 Fax 727-549-6070 www.nfstc.org

�"�� The National Forensic Science Tech-

nology Center (NFSTC) expects to recruita chief scientist this Spring. The incum-bent will be responsible for scientific man-agement of the NFSTC’s crime labora-tory quality support programs, includ-ing the new proficiency testing program.

The ideal candidate will have asound awareness of quality systems inforensic science (for example theASCLD/LAB and ISO accreditation pro-grams, the DAB standards for DNA analy-sis, and the work of the various TWG andSWG groups). The person appointedneeds to have the committed attentionto detail that is critical for successful de-livery of these programs. The chief scien-tist must also have the ability to establishand maintain effective working relation-ships with operational forensic scientists.

The post is not tenured and its con-tinuation will depend on the performanceof the person appointed. Please let usknow if you are interested in being con-sidered for the position. A formal appli-cation packet will be sent out to you whenready. Please send a resume and a shortdescription of why you are interested toDr William J Tilstone, Executive DirectorNFSTC, 3200 34th Street South, St. Pe-tersburg FL, or by e-mail [email protected].

�� *(State of Washington)$2477-3161 per month (range 44)

Duties: Performs beginning level labora-tory analyses of physical evidence usingaccepted scientific methods. Interpretsanalytical results and prepares writtenopinion reports. Testifies as an expertwitness in courts of law.

A bachelor of science degree in fo-rensic science or a natural science whichmust include a minimum of 20 semesteror 30 quarter hours of chemistry and 5semester or 8 quarter hours of physics.

Special Note: Some positions willbe working with DNA analyses. These

Calico Press


positions require at least one college levelcourse in each of the following: Molecu-lar Biology, Biochemistry, Genetics

DESIRABLE QUALIFICATIONS:One year of full-time paid technical expe-rience in an analytical, research, or crimelaboratory.

EXAMINATION: The examinationis a one and three quarter-hour multiple-choice exam that measures your knowl-edge, abilities, and aptitudes to performthe duties of the job. You will be notifiedby mail when and where to appear forthe written exam. Bring picture identifi-cation with you when you come to takethe exam. We will mail you your score,but we cannot tell you your ranking onthe list of job applicants.

$�� !��The Acadiana Crime Lab is pleased

to announce the creation of a third ana-lyst position in its Biology/DNA section.The position shall remain open until filled.We encourage all interested candidatesto apply. Candidates MUST have at leasta master’s degree in a biology-related fieldand no more than four years of DNA ex-perience. Coursework must also includegenetics/population genetics, statistics,biochemistry, and molecular biology. Dueto DAB guidelines, we can not substituteexperience for degree requirements.

Experience with the ABI Prism 310Genetic Analyzer and its operating soft-ware is a big plus. The Acadiana CrimeLab will also weigh additional abilities,such as computer, teaching, and commu-nication skills. The salary range is $42,648to $47,466, which will be commensuratewith experience. For the South, that ain’tbad... The Acadiana Crime Lab is a small,quasi-state agency that offers most fo-

rensic services in-house. Specialized dis-ciplines, such as odontology, anthropol-ogy, and entomology, are providedthrough other agencies. The AcadianaCrime Lab is located in sunny (sometimestoo sunny) New Iberia, Louisiana, whichis about 20 miles from Lafayette. NewIberia is also about 2 hours from NewOrleans by car and about 3 hours by boat.Interested applicants should send theirCV’s to Arthur Young at 5004 W. Admi-ral Doyle Drive, New Iberia, LA 70560.Questions can be e-mailed to this address([email protected]). Sorry, no phonecalls at this time (I’ve got work to do!).

$�� !��The Lake County Regional Foren-

sic Lab in Painesville, OH currently hasan opening for a DNA analyst. Shouldyou have any questions, please contact:Linda M. Erdei Assistant Director LakeCounty Regional Forensic LaboratoryPhone: (440) 350-2184 Fax: (440) 350-2731e-mail: [email protected]

$�� The Lake County Regional Foren-

sic Lab in Painesville, OH is seeking ap-plicants for the position of DNA Scientist.Qualifications include a bachelor’s degreein chemistry, biology, forensic science, ora related field. Three years of experiencein a forensic DNA laboratory is preferred.An MS or PhD degree will be stronglyconsidered. Applicants must also havecompleted 12 semester hours in genetics,biochemistry and molecular biology, inorder to comply with DAB Guidelines.Preference will be given to those individu-als with experience performing PCRanalysis or using the ABI 310, and to those

with previous experience testifying incourt as an expert witness. Responsibili-ties include crime scene processing, ex-amining evidence for biological fluids,body fluid analysis, analyzing and inter-preting test results using STR DNA tech-nology, writing reports, testifying to re-sults in court and participating in ongo-ing research and validation studies. Sal-ary commensurate with education andexperience.

Linda M. Erdei,Assistant Director,Lake County Regional Forensic Labora-tory Phone: (440) 350-2184 Fax: (440) 350-2731 e-mail: [email protected]

�� $�� !��New Mexico DPS Crime LabRecruitment Begins: 2-14-2000Pay Grade: 28 $35,199.84 —

$52,800.80 To analyze controlled sub-stances and present results in court. Quali-fications: Bachelor’s degree from accred-ited college or univ. in chemistry, foren-sic science, criminal justice, and/or physi-cal science. (CJ degree must be supple-mented by 18 sem hrs of chemistry orbiology) Experience: 4 years in druganalysis in forensic lab, and testimony asexpert witness. 2 yrs experience in mul-tiple instrumentation: GC, IR, MS. For fur-ther information, contact TomVanValkenburgh (505) 827-9140.

�� Washington State Patrol is cur-

rently hiring Forensic Scientists 1, 2 and3. For information please visit them at:

http://www.wa.gov/wsp/hrd/forensic.htm

NapaCAC/FSSMay 8-12

7

I

NANCY��

TTTTTo Err Is .o Err Is .o Err Is .o Err Is .o Err Is . . . . . . . . . . .

F E E D B A C KF E E D B A C KF E E D B A C KF E E D B A C KF E E D B A C K

��+�� !� �!�� (��Editor,Re "Nation's Crime Labs to Merge with Judiciary" by

Raymond Davis [CAC News, 1st Qtr, 2000]Although I have not heard that there actually is a move

towards having a forensic science expert recognized as an ex-pert of the court, I know that this topic has been on the mindsof many scientists and lawyers who often struggle with theadversarial nature of expert witness testimony in the U.S. There

have been many examples of this "court expert" system in Eu-rope, particularly in the former communist countries of Cen-tral and Eastern Europe. Be that as it may, I disagree with Ray'scommentary that there is a "great advantage for an expertwitness to have a neutral standing in court."

I have worked under both systems: for about two yearsin Poland in the late 1960s, and in the USA since 1974. I have alsoheld many discussions with the criminalists, law professors andthe crime lab administrators from Poland, Armenia, Georgia

I have heard that, for most, publicspeaking is more terrifying than deathitself. Translated for those occupied inour profession, we would prefer to beshot or stabbed than speak in front of agroup. Why? Because of our dire con-sciousness of how society will perceiveus. Being that testifying in front of ajudge and jury is a manner of publicspeaking, there must be a multitude oftrembling criminalists out there.

Some of the most brilliant peoplewe know are those who possess the low-est self-esteem and who avoid the pub-lic eye at all costs. How bizarre. Is therea secret? Perhaps those speakers exud-ing confidence realize they are not intel-lectually inferior to their listeners.

Certainly, exposure is the most ef-fective method of alleviating our anxi-eties. With each experience, addressingan audience becomes significantly lessdifficult. Organizations such as the CACprovide us with the opportunity to“practice” by presenting papers at semi-nars. Yet, how else could the CAC helpto diminish our apprehensiveness inthis area?

I asked several friends and col-leagues at the Ontario seminar what theirmost disconcerting courtroom experi-ence was. Virtually everyone could rec-ollect a minimum of one account and noone was reluctant to share them. Howgratifying it was to be reminded we aremerely human and are destined to beimperfect periodically.

Conceivably, acquainting our-selves with one another’s discomposedcourtroom encounters could heightenour self-assurance. If even one occur-rence comes to mind prior to assumingthe “dangling like bait” position, it couldremind us we are no less deserving ofrespect than anyone else.

In this issue of the CACNews weare introducing a new feature, “Court-room Calamities.” This regular additionto our newsletter will be devoted to ourmost momentous episodes, which if de-sired, may be submitted anonymously.

For if we cannot learn to laugh atour own falterings, we are truly doingourselves an immense disservice.

The CACNews prints letters to the editor that are of interest to itsreaders. We reserve the right to edit letters for brevity and clarity.All submissions to this page become the property of the CACNews.

How gratifying

it was to be

reminded we

are merely

human and are

destined to be

imperfect peri-

odically.


(former Soviet Republic, not a "Peach State"), Moldavia andUkraine as recently as the last year. The topic, of course, was acomparison between the court expert system of these coun-tries and an adversarial expert witness system in the U.S.

It is true that we are often a tool in the hands of the sidewho called us to present the view of evidence which supportsthe theory of that side. It is equally true that in the court expertsystem, the presentation of expert evidence and its interpreta-tion is left entirely to the expert. I am not suggesting that anexpert may dishonestly represent his or her findings, but thereare often many aspects of physical evidence that may not findtheir way into the courtroom short of a vigorous cross-exami-nation. These fine interpretive nuances could shed a differentlight on the case although an expert may not be aware of theirimpact. Under a court expert system these aspects may neverbe brought to light. It is a fact that under a court expert rule,there is practically no cross-examination. Either side can posesome questions, but these questions are screened by the judgeand usually serve only to explain technical language and termsoften used in the written laboratory reports.

In all countries I visited last year, the average number ofexpert witness testimony actually presented in court by an ex-pert in one year was in a single digit even in those labs per-forming virtually thousands of examinations per year.

I think that the latest [U.S.] Supreme Court decisions(Kumho and Daubert), although strictly applicable to federal ju-risdictions, have already found a following in the state courts.These important decisions have put all of us on notice that nowwe must be able to describe the principles behind our examina-tion and findings at the risk of not being admitted at all. Inshort, they keep us honest.

Therefore, in my opinion, the adversarial system pro-vides far better chance that the entire value of evidence will bepresented to the trier of fact even if one side takes a differentview of evidence than does the other.

—Richard A. Grzybowski

�� Editor,Recently, publicity has been generated surrounding a 1986

rape case in which a criminalist, James Hall, from my labora-tory was involved. Many of the news articles have mentionedallegations of “scientific fraud” on the part of Jim in this case.Because of this, I feel that people should be aware of who JimHall really is and to let you know how ludicrous these allega-tions are.

I have known Jim for 14 years. As a new criminalist in1985 I was assigned to the narcotics section of our laboratory.Jim took me under his wing and trained me. He also assistedme in my Blood Alcohol training. One feature of Jim’s charac-ter that I saw from the very beginning was how unbiased he is,and how he is one person in forensic science who does not havean ego that gets in the way of his casework and testimony. Ihave seen him testify without hesitation about an Intoxilyzertest in which he opined that the instrument was not workingproperly and therefore, he could not say that the test resultswere accurate. I remember that he told me how he hated thefact that there was not free exchange of information in casesbetween the defense and prosecution, and how we often aretreated as “pawns” in their games. I remember him cautioningme about going too far in interpreting analytical results. Is thisthe thinking of someone who would commit “scientific fraud”?

What happened to the defendant in the 1986 rape case isvery unfortunate indeed. But, I think that wrongfully and pub-licly assassinating another person’s character in order to pushyour own idea to get DNA testing done in a more timely fash-ion for defendants who have been convicted of crimes, is notthe way to go about it. . .

—Marianne Stam

�� ,�� -�� '�$#.�� !�� To: Thomas Janovsky, Assoc. Deputy Assist. Administra-

tor, DEA Office of Forens Svcs.

I appreciate the time that you and Mr. Bono took at therecent American Academy meeting held in Reno to providethose in attendance with an update as to the progress ofSWGDRUG. I even appreciated the time at the end for ques-tions, and indeed, Mr. Bono’s prompting for those supportingmicrocrystalline tests to speak their mind when no commentsseemed to be forthcoming. I wish there had been more timefor discussion regarding some of these very difficult issues butthen again, some things are better left for a more formalized,written venue.

I have several concerns that I wish to address in this letterand these concerns are related to either things that were saidby prominent members of SWGDRUG or issues that seem tobe in contradiction with the mission statement of SWGDRUG. Ifeel that these concerns are valid enough that I will be submit-ting this letter to all the core members of SWGDRUG, the Meth-ods and Reports Subcommittee, the president of ASCLD/LABas well as to the regional association newsletters within thiscountry.

I am concerned with the use of the term “guidelines,”especially as used by Dr. Siegel during the course of the discus-sion. I am not about to suggest that there is a deliberate at-tempt to mislead the forensic community in this respect as tothis group’s intent. To do so would be blatantly unfair andjudgmental and I will engage in neither. However, as you hadstated, it was your intention to “present the recommendationsto the differing accrediting bodies.” With all due respect Mr.Janovsky what is the logical consequence of this action? Thelogical consequence is that these accrediting bodies will look atthe material provided to them, go in faith that this is the gen-eral consensus of the scientific community and set them asstandards for their member agencies. Now it can be arguedthat a laboratory does not have to be a member agency of anaccrediting body, but that too is a fallacy as increasing govern-mental legislation and funding are directly tied to the accredita-tion process. With all due respect to Mr. Bono’s statement thatSWGDRUG is not “taking authority away from laboratorymanagers” that is precisely what is going to happen as a directresult of these “guidelines.” These guidelines and recommen-dations will rapidly become institutionalized as the methods bywhich drugs will be analyzed.

Now if this is going to take place, and it will, we need todo justice to the scientific community by validating the processthrough which this has been done. If this is not done, thenbefore too long no one will ever know the concrete reasonswhy certain methods were excluded and why certain methodswere included. If this is not done, no one will ever know thereason why it is vital to have structural elucidation methodswhen there are other methods available that will identify thecompound despite not giving structural information. As a boy

9

growing up in Gary, Indiana I suspect you never imaginedbeing in the position of influencing the international scope offorensic drug analysis. Is the legacy of that influence to be asimple document that 20 years from now people will not beable to understand why something was done? Or is that legacygoing to contain scientific logic, insight, research and a consid-eration of many different issues, including those held of what isbeing considered an inconsequential group of people whencompared to the international spectrum.

With respect to this issue I wish to address the concept ofminimum standards. If I may quote the mission statement ofSWGDRUG, it reads, “The mission of SWGDRUG is to makerecommendations for internationally accepted minimum stan-dards for the forensic examination of seized drugs.” Yet duringthe course of your presentation I continued to hear the phrase“raising the bar.” I submit that in the common use of the terms,no matter “what state” one is from, “minimum standards” arenot the same thing as “raising the bar.” Minimum standardsare just that, those minimum standards that are necessary todo the job correctly and competently. When one refers to rais-ing the bar, it is meant to elevate one above the minimumrequirements, to strive to do better in some manner. I wouldargue that those laboratories that were not even meeting theminimum requirements of analysis are performing work thatcannot be relied upon and demonstrates incompetence. Theseare precisely the laboratories for which minimum standardsare required. Raising the bar is a step above those minimumrequirements and as such represents a level that is artificiallyset. No matter how much science is involved, no matter howmuch logic is involved and no matter how much anecdotalinformation is shared, it is still an artificial level. In practice, it isan artificial level set based on the premise of popularity orcommonality of use. Not only that, but establishing an artifi-cially high level as the minimum level paralyzes all of forensicsin the light of increasingly powerful technology. In short, newtechnology by itself, does not invalidate methods previouslyvalidated. Technology simply provides us with a new tool forour toolbox.

This leads to my very next point. When GC/MS was firstintroduced, but not in practice at many of the local laboratories,was the methodology invalid simply because it was not in useat the majority of laboratories? The answer is no. It was studiedand examined and scientifically validated for the purposes forwhich it would be used. Why then is the same logic, i.e., not incommon use, being used to refute the use of microcrystallinetests? With all due respect, I am tired of hearing the commentsthat say it is not used extensively outside California, that itrequires extensive training, that there is little documentation (astatement which is not true), that it is subjective, and on and onand on. None of these concerns directly addresses the onlyissue that should be of any significance and that is its validity. Iappreciate the little soliloquy you gave at the end of your talkregarding your colleague, but has the Methods and ReportsSubcommittee found any published data that regards microc-rystalline tests as an invalid technique? Indeed, my question ofwhether or not they even considered the wealth of data vali-dating the technique was never answered at the meeting. Ihave no misgivings about the fact that microcrystalline testsare not suited to the identification of all drugs. That is simplytoo insane a position to hold. But I do submit that for the mostcommon drugs encountered in local laboratories it is as valid atechnique as any structural elucidation methods, and indeed,sometimes superior. By the subjection of microcrystalline tests

to a class B test and the consequential requirement of a struc-tural elucidation test, by your very guidelines you have rel-egated microcrystalline testing as an invalid means for identi-fying drugs. That is as logical an interpretation that can bedrawn from this group’s actions and is as logical as knowingthat guidelines submitted to accrediting bodies will becomerequirements for their members. If you want to leave a legacy,then I suggest you leave one that appropriately and adequatelyarticulates the reasons why microcrystalline tests were excludedfrom minimum standards of identification and, at the sametime, why structural elucidation methods are so superior whenthey are used as nothing more than pattern matching tech-niques for routine casework.

This leads to the most difficult issue of this entire letter,regarding the sunset clause. If I may quote section 1.3 of thesubcommittee recommendations, “It should be emphasized thatthe use of at least one technique that provides structural infor-mation is currently encouraged. After January 1, 2005, it will beSWGDRUG’s recommendation that laboratories require the useof a structural elucidation technique in all forensic drug identifi-

cations.” When broached at the meeting, it was indicated thatthis sunset clause was for the purpose of allowing laboratories to“gear up” to the new recommendations. Until then they are toapproach their casework according to the guidelines set forth inthe remainder of the section. The last point of this section indi-cates that the data has to have the capacity to be reviewed. Spe-cifically it indicates that written descriptions are adequate butonly for the morphological characteristics of marijuana. Whynot that same consideration for microcrystalline tests? I knowfor a fact that most laboratories using them either draw whatthey see or are able to articulate a written description quite well.In fact that is part of their training. Further I have a question. Iflaboratories take photographs of their microcrystalline tests thendoes this meet the needs of this last requirement? It certainlydoes (I often answer my own questions). However, documenta-tion has nothing to do with validity.

All this to introduce one very simple, but very powerfulstatement. In light of your mission statement that discussesrecommending “minimum requirements” and recognizing thatstructural elucidation techniques are to be considered part ofthose “minimum requirements,” the inclusion of a sunset clauseis unethical and morally wrong. Either the subsections of 1.3represent good science or they don’t. If you, the group, and thesubcommittee believe these to be inadequate for the purposeof identifying drugs, a position that is implied because of yourinsistence on structural elucidation techniques, then to condonebad forensic practice for a period of five years with a sunsetclause is clearly unethical and to do so would bring one subjectto potential charges of an ethical violation. I empathize withlaboratories that do not have the capabilities for minimum stan-dards. But if, in your group’s opinion, they don’t, then don’topenly condone their work for any period of time.

I would submit that if the subsections of 1.3 are goodenough for the purposes of a sunset clause, then they wouldserve well as minimum standards. As I see it, there are twopotential possibilities when confronted with this situation. The

[H]as the Methods and Reports Subcommittee

found any published data that regards microc-

rystalline tests as an invalid technique?


��

Chip Pollockon the birth of his baby boy,

born December 13, 1999

Elissa Mayoon her marriage, August 21, 1999

Jerry Massettion his promotion to

CCI Assistant Laboratory Director

Raymond Davison his assignment as Professional Development

Trainer at DOJ-DNA Lab

Meridee Smithon her retirement from Sac Co. DA’s lab

first is that the committee really does believe that structuralelucidation techniques are necessary to meet the minimum stan-dards. If such is the case, then the committee has a moral andethical obligation to the public that we serve to prohibit anysort of sunset clause. Indeed, to permit such a clause wouldbring into question the ethical and moral practice of those serv-ing on this committee. In addition, it will be necessary, for thecause of good science, to articulate specific reasons why thesemethods, specifically microcrystalline tests, are not valid meth-ods. They have been in existence for over 100 years and whilethere is a plethora of published and presented data that vali-dates this technique, I have yet to see any published or pre-sented data to the contrary. I have however heard much anec-dotal information regarding the issue. But to be perfectly hon-est, while it makes for good dinner conversation among peerswith nothing better to talk about, as a foundation for the invali-dation of techniques in use by the forensic field, no matter howseemingly small, it is completely useless. Simply put, if all onehas to offer in opposition to microcrystalline tests is anecdotalinformation, they should keep their mouths closed becausethey otherwise confuse the issue.

The second possibility is that the committee does recog-nize the validity of such testing methods, but still would recom-mend the use of structural elucidation techniques. If this is thecase, then there is no ethical or moral consideration involved.In fact, this reduces the scientific concerns to mere bureaucraticones. Simply put, it is a matter of preference for a particular labsystem. However, what has to be articulated is that the othertesting procedures are indeed a valid way of analyzing for soliddosage drugs. In fact, in accordance with your mission of mini-mum accepted standards, they seem to fit quite well. A caveatthat the committee still recommends the use of structural eluci-dation techniques may be offered, but it will have to be couchedin the terms that it is over and above the minimum require-ments. In addition, for the cause of good science, one should beable to articulate why structural elucidation is so recommendedwith the previous warnings against the use of anecdotal infor-mation.

I realize this letter is rather lengthy but there are twoother issues I wish to address and will do so briefly. The first Mr.Javonsky, is your statement in response to speed of caseworkin which you indicated that you have yet to hear a bench scien-tist wish to do their job faster, only better. That statement is richin implications that quite a few people would find personallyoffensive. Local public laboratories have clients that they serve,police agencies and the court system. To imply that simplybecause we wish to get them their results as fast as we can weare willing to sacrifice quality is an affront to the integrity ofthese scientists and frankly you should be ashamed of makingsuch a potentially volatile statement which smacks of igno-rance in such a public venue. Our clients expect valid results.They are getting them with microcrystalline tests. We are alsooffering them those results in as efficient manner as possiblethus serving them in the best manner we possibly can and weare proud of it. To imply otherwise, as your statement can anddid do, is offensive and I feel that an apology is owed to thosein attendance.

The second is the statement made by Dr. Siegel regard-ing how we “serve two masters.” Those “masters” are thelegal system and science. I serve only one master and he isChrist Jesus. Now, while I took exception to Dr. Siegel’s state-ment for that initial reason, I began to reflect on that statementand began to wonder if it is that very philosophy that has put

us into the predicament in which we have found ourselves. Thelegal system and science are not masters. They are man-madeinstitutions and as such should be regarded simply as tools. Thelegal system is a tool to pursue justice while science is a toolused to try to explain phenomena. I hesitated to even bring thisissue up because at the current time this line of thought is some-thing that requires serious reflection. However, it would alsobe arrogant of me to think that I alone am to reflect upon thisissue. So, I am presenting it for you and the group to considerand reflect upon. It may help us gain a perspective that hasbeen lost in the midst of Kelly-Frye, Daubert and increasingcomputerized technology.

These are not easy issues to deal with, especially the ethi-cal and moral concerns I expressed. However, they are criticalenough that answers have to be forthcoming. The opinions inthis letter are not necessarily endorsed by my organization orany association to which I belong, but I stand prepared to de-fend them even if it means sacrificing forensics as a career.What one does for their career does not define whom they areas an individual but rather how they comport themselves ashuman beings in and outside their career. I have fought thisfight for a long time and had considered accepting what seemedto be inevitable. However, the way in which this is being doneis leaving a very bad taste in my mouth and the future genera-tions of forensic scientists deserve better than artificial stan-dards of acceptability that are based on nothing more than apopularity contest.

With that said I will close, but only for now. I will exerciseall available avenues to bring all these issues into the open. Iappreciate the time that you have taken to read this letter. Iwelcome the comments of anyone reading this whether theyare negative or positive. I also welcome the opportunity topresent these concerns in person to anyone who would like tohear them.

—Ronald G. Nichols

11

CAC President HiramEvans (r) presenting to FSSPresident Norman Weston aResolution passed by theCAC congratulating theFSS on the occasion of the40th Anniversary of theFSS. This presentation wasmade at the FSS 40thAnniversary Meeting inNottingham UK.

RESOLUTION

WHEREAS, the Forensic ScienceSociety was founded in Harrogate, En-gland, in 1959, and

WHEREAS, the California Associa-tion of Criminalists was founded in SanJose, California, in 1953, and

WHEREAS, the Forensic ScienceSociety is the professional associationwhich represents forensic scientists in theUnited Kingdom, and

WHEREAS, the California Associa-tion of Criminalists is the professionalassociation which represents forensic sci-entists in California, Nevada and Arizona,and

WHEREAS, the Forensic ScienceSociety publishes Science and Justice, oneof the leading forensic science journals,which journal is also the official organ ofthe California Association of Criminalists,and

WHEREAS, the members of theCalifornia Association of Criminalistshave for over thirty years enjoyed affili-ate membership in the Forensic ScienceSociety, and

WHEREAS, the Forensic ScienceSociety has established a program for therecognition of competence of forensic

science practitioners through a programof certification in several forensic sciencespecialties, and

WHEREAS, the California Associa-tion of Criminalists developed the firstprogram for certification of Criminalistsin the United States, and

WHEREAS, the Forensic ScienceSociety and the California Association ofCriminalists, in alternating years, recog-nize one of their young members withthe Joint President’s Award, and

WHEREAS, the Forensic ScienceSociety has on numerous occasions overthe past 40 years cordially welcomed visi-tors from the California Association ofCriminalists, and

WHEREAS, the California Associa-tion of Criminalists has for a similar pe-riod of time welcomed guests from theForensic Science Society, and

WHEREAS, the Forensic ScienceSociety and the California Association ofCriminalists have begun a tradition ofsponsoring joint meetings of the two or-ganizations, and

WHEREAS, the Forensic ScienceSociety and the California Association ofCriminalists are both committed to pro-

viding forensic science services of thehighest quality to the citizens of their re-spective countries, and

WHEREAS, like those individualswho founded the California Associationof Criminalists, the founders of the Fo-rensic Science Society have provided toits members a legacy of professional de-velopment, ethical concern, technical ad-vancement, and personal commitmentthat will continue to assure the highestlevel of professional excellence in the ser-vice of its members to the legal systemand the citizens of the United Kingdom,

BE IT THEREFOR RESOLVED, thatthe California Association of Criminalistsextends its heartfelt congratulations to themembers of the Forensic Science Societyon the occasion of the fortieth anniver-sary of its founding.

RESOLVED BY THE MEMBERS OFTHE CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OFCRIMINALISTS ON THIS 15th DAY OFOCTOBER, 1999,

Hiram Evans, PresidentCalifornia Association of Criminalists

FSS 40th Anniversary Marked by CAC Resolution


Candidate’s Statements�� /��"�� !��

My name is Jeanne Parsons, fromthe San Diego Sheriff ’s Department

Crime Laboratory, andI am running for theoffice of membershipsecretary. I have beenan active member inthe California Associa-tion of Criminalists forfour years. As a mem-ber I have attended nu-

merous study groups and seminars whilemeeting my fellow professionals in theforensic field. I am excited about the pros-pect of serving the members by bringingnew ideas and hard work to help thegrowth of our organization. As membersI believe we should give back to the or-ganization which has helped further thedevelopment of our individual careers.

I believe my good organizationaland outgoing people skills will be astrong asset in the membership processof quality professionals. A mixture of newand experienced individuals will continuea healthy growth and development ofour organization as we move into the21stcentury. Thank you for consideringme for this position.

�� /��"�� !� ��

I have been a member of the CACsince 1995. I have been active in the North-ern California study groups, namely fire-arms and controlled substances. Currently

I am a supervisingcriminalist with theSan Mateo CountyForensic Lab. I havealso been employedwith the San DiegoCounty Sheriff ’sCrime Lab. I enteredthe field of forensics

in 1993. I am a graduate of Cal Poly SanLuis Obispo where I received a B.S. in Biol-ogy. I hold a master’s degree in Anthro-pology from San Diego State, in which Iconcentrated in Forensic Anthropology. Ihave been fortunate to attend numerouscourses from CCI and have benefitedgreatly from their training.

I am particularly excited about theposition of membership secretary be-

cause it will give me an opportunity tobecome better acquainted with my col-leagues, and take an active roll in recruit-ing new members to the organization.There is no doubt, a large pool of pro-spective members to draw from. Our fieldis skyrocketing in popularity and it is ex-citing to see the discipline receive suchaccolades and exposure. It is evident onTV and in the popular press, and has cul-minated in a statewide ballot initiative toassist in the construction of new labs andrenovation of existing labs! My aim is todraw more people into the CAC, to con-tinue making our presence known in theworldwide forensic community, and byfurther promotion through the Internet.

�� /��"�� !& !�� !� �"��

I’m Elissa Mayo Thompson fromthe DOJ Riverside Crime Laboratory. Ihave worked in serology and crime sceneinvestigation for the past 10 years. Dur-ing that time I have been actively in-volved in providing crime scene training

to the legal, medicaland law enforce-ment communitiesand served as theprogram co-chairfor the fall 1996 CACsemi-annual meet-ing in Palm Springs.In my spare time Ienjoy graphic de-

sign, WEB surfing, gardening, andSCUBA diving.

I am seeking your vote for mem-bership secretary as a means to becomemore involved in our organization. Asmembership and participation are thefoundation of any organization, my goalsinclude designing and producing an ad-vertising and membership campaign toincrease and encourage sustained mem-bership, while remaining accessible andresponsive to current CAC members.

As membership secretary, I willbring new ideas and enthusiasm to theCAC and look forward to the responsi-bility that the position requires.

�� #�� !(�0�� ( � �� 1� ��2

��

I have been a criminalist with theSanta Clara County Crime Laboratorysince 1995 and a proud member of theCAC since 1994, when I was a student in

Forensic Science atU.C. Berkeley. I haveattended many CACseminars, presentedsome research, andorganized the techni-cal program for the1996 Spring Seminar.

I have alwaysseen my career in

criminalistics as a profession and not just ajob. I appreciate the role of the CAC in theevolution of the profession and want tobe a part of it. I would like to becomemore involved in the CAC and now haveenough time to make a larger contribu-tion as recording secretary. I am very or-ganized and dependable, and will be ableto commit the time to be at all of the meet-ings to take the minutes. I would like theopportunity to serve as your RecordingSecretary and would appreciate your vote.

�� #�� $��3� ��"�� "!

I have enjoyed working on theBoard of Directors as Regional DirectorNorth for the last two years, and lookforward to serving another term. I wouldalso like to take this opportunity to thank

those of you who helpedby volunteering to host adinner meeting. I appreci-ate the time and effortwhich you have put intoplanning this type ofevent. I would also like toacknowledge the study

group chairs for all their work. It is theirorganization and coordination which haslead to so many informative and usefulstudy group meetings.

�� & ��At press time, the CACNews had

not received word of any candidates forthe office of president elect. Could YOUbe the next one to lead our association?Please call Donald Jones, NominatingCommittee at (909) 387-2200.

13

[Following] is a draft of a bill thatthe Association’s Public Health LiaisonCommittee has suggested to State Sena-tor Ross Johnson. It has yet to be intro-duced in the California Senate, so there isno SB number as yet. As I’m sure youknow, bills often pass through several in-carnations and revisions prior to comingbefore the legislature for a vote. This draftis being provided to you for your com-ments and in an effort to solicit your sup-port, at least conceptually, for reform ofthe regulations under which forensic al-cohol analysis is regulated in California.Please note that the relevant Health &Safety Codes Sections were renumbereda few years ago; Sections 100700 to 100750on the draft correspond to those formerlynumbered 436.50 to 436.59.

The fundamental purpose of thebill is to limit DoHS’ bureaucratic med-dling, by several means:

1. Require the DoHS to reconsti-tute the Review Committee which has atthe hands of DoHS remained inactive forso long, require the committee to meetat least every 5 years (!) and through themlimit their regulations to those reason-ably necessary to ensure laboratory andanalyst competence. We believe this willreduce the bureaucratic interference ofDoHS in procedure writing.

2. Incorporate the US DoT “ModelSpecifications for Evidential Breath Test-ing Devices” and “Model Specificationsfor Calibrating Units for Breath Testers”

3. Require the DoHS to issue a li-cense to a laboratory accredited byASLCD/LAB in alcohol analysis, whichwould

a. reduce the problem of accred-ited laboratories having to answer to twomasters, DoHS and ASCLD/LAB,

b. allow DoHS to better focus theiractivities on what they do well, i.e. pro-viding proficiency test samples, NOTmethod review. This reflects the recom-mendations in the State Auditor’s reportof August 1999.

I hope you will review the draft andmake your comments known to Jeff Th-ompson, CAC’s Public Health LiaisonCommittee chair. I will provide furtherinformation on the bill as it wends its waythrough the legislative chicane.

—Hiram K. Evans, M.Sc., F-ABC

��#&��4�� ,�(#&�.,��#5� #&��#�� (4,,

NOTE: additions are shown in bolditalics, deletions are stricken through.

Health & Safety Code Section100700 is amended to read:

The department shall adopt andpublish regulations to be used in approv-ing and governing the operation of labo-ratories engaging in the performance oftests referred to in Sections 100710 and100715, including the qualifications of theemployees who perform the tests, thatare determined, pursuant to Sections100701 and 100703, to be it determinesare reasonably necessary to ensure thecompetence of the laboratories and em-ployees to prepare, analyze, and reportthe results of the tests.

Section 100701 is added to theHealth & Safety Code, to read:

On or before [date], the departmentshall revise, adopt and publish regulationsto be used in approving and governingthe operation of laboratories and law en-forcement agencies engaging in the per-formance of the tests referred to in Sec-tion 100715. The regulations shall incor-porate the “Model Specifications for Evi-dential Breath Testing Devices” and the“Model Specifications for CalibratingUnits for Breath Alcohol Testers” as pub-lished in the Federal Register by the Na-tional Highway Traffic Safety Adminis-tration of the United States Departmentof Transportation. The revised regula-tions shall be adopted only after the de-partment has convened a review com-mittee pursuant to Section 100703, andthe review committee has determinedthat the regulations are limited to require-ments the review committee finds arereasonably necessary to ensure the com-petence of the laboratories or personsconducting the tests.


(a) Regulations adopted pursuantto this article governing the tests referredto in Section 100710 shall not apply to alaboratory holding a current accredita-tion to perform the tests referred to in

Section 100710 from the American Soci-ety of Crime Laboratory Directors/Labo-ratory Accreditation Board.

(b) Notwithstanding subdivision(a), the department may continue to im-pose proficiency testing requirements ona laboratory engaging in the performanceof tests referred to in Sections 100710.


(a) On or before July 1, 2001, and atleast once in each five year period there-after, the department shall convene aReview Committee to evaluate regula-tions proposed or adopted by the depart-ment pursuant to this article. The ReviewCommittee shall be appointed by the di-rector of the department, and shall havenine members, including one person rep-resenting each of the following: the At-torney General, the California HighwayPatrol, district attorneys, public defend-ers, coroners, criminalists, pathologists,analytical chemists, and forensic labora-tory managers.

(b) The Review Committee shall ex-amine the regulations adopted by the de-partment pursuant to this article, and rec-ommend revisions that will limit the regu-lations to requirements the Review Com-mittee determines are reasonably neces-sary to ensure the competence of the labo-ratories and employees to prepare, ana-lyze and report the results of the test.

(c) The department shall adopt therevisions recommended by the ReviewCommittee.

HSC 100710 is amended to read:The testing by or for law enforce-

ment agencies of blood, urine, or tissuefor the purposes of determining the con-centration of ethyl alcohol in the blood ofpersons involved in traffic accidents or intraffic violations shall be performed onlyby a laboratory approved and licensedby the director for the performance ofthese tests, [STRIKE THE COMMA] orby a laboratory holding a current accredi-tation to perform those tests from theAmerican Society of Crime LaboratoryDirectors/Laboratory AccreditationBoard.

HSC 100715 is amended to read:The testing of breath samples by

or for law enforcement agencies for pur-poses of determining the concentrationof ethyl alcohol in the blood of personsinvolved in traffic accidents or in trafficviolations shall be performed in accor-dance with regulations adopted by the

Alcohol Testing ReformSubject of Proposed law


department pursuant to Section 100701.The regulations shall establish the proce-dures to be used by law enforcementagencies in administering breath tests forthe purposes of determining the concen-tration of ethyl alcohol in a person’sblood. The regulations shall be adoptedand published in accordance with Chap-ter 3.5 (commencing with Section 11340)of Part 1 of Division 3 of Title 2 of theGovernment Code.

HSC Section 100720 is amended toread:

Each laboratory in the state thatperforms the tests referred to in Sections100710 and 100715, shall be licensed bythe director. The director shall issue alicense to a laboratory that presents proofof a current accreditation to perform thetests referred to in Sections 100710 fromthe American Society of Crime Labora-tory Directors/Laboratory AccreditationBoard. Each of these laboratories, otherthan a laboratory operated by the state,city or county or other public agency shallupon application for licensing pay a feeto the department in an amount, to bedetermined by the department, that willreimburse the department for the costsincurred by the department in the issu-ance and renewal of these licenses. On orbefore each January 1 of each year there-after, each of these laboratories shall payto the department a fee so determinedby the department.

Section 100725:Legislative Counsel, I have not in-

cluded any change in this section butplease check to see if you think any con-forming change is necessary.

On or after January 1, 1971, the de-partment shall enforce this chapter andregulations adopted by the department.

100730:Legislative Counsel, I have not in-


On or after January 1, 1971, the de-partment shall annually publish a list ofapproved and licensed laboratories en-gaging in the performance of tests re-ferred to in Sections 100710 and 100715.

100735:Legislative Counsel, we want to

provide that if a lab is exempt pursuantto §100702, then the department SHALLaccept proof of inspection by the Ameri-

can Society of Crime Laboratory Direc-tors/Laboratory Accreditation Board assatisfying the inspection requirement inthis section.

Every approved and licensed labo-ratory shall be periodically inspected bythe department. Reports of each inspec-tion shall be prepared on forms furnishedby the department and shall be filed withthe department.

100740:Legislative Counsel, I have not in-


Any license issued pursuant to Sec-tion 100720 may be suspended or revokedby the director for any of the reasons setforth in Section 100750. The director mayrefuse to issue a license to any applicantfor any of the reasons set forth in Section100745. The proceedings under this ar-ticle shall be conducted in accordance withChapter 5 (commencing with Section11500) of Part 1 of Division 3 of Title 2 ofthe Government Code, and the directorshall have the powers and duties grantedtherein.

Section 100745:Legislative Counsel: please make

any conforming changes needed to en-sure (a) isn’t triggered merely by the ex-emption we are establishing in 100702.

The director may deny a license ifthe applicant or any partner, officer ordirector thereof:

(a) Fails to meet the qualificationsestablished by the department pursuantto this article for the issuance of the li-

cense applied for. (b) Was previously the holder of

a license issued under this article that wasrevoked and never reissued or that wassuspended and the terms of the suspen-sion have not been fulfilled.

(c) Has committed any act in-volving dishonesty, fraud, or deceitwhereby another was injured or wherebythe applicant has benefited.

Section 100750:Legislative Counsel: please make

any conforming changes needed to en-sure (a) isn’t triggered merely by the ex-emption we are establishing in 100702,and add subdivision (d) below:

The director may suspend, revoke,or take other disciplinary action against alicensee as provided in this article if thelicensee or any partner, officer or direc-tor thereof:

(a) Violates any of the regula-tions adopted by the department pursu-ant to this article.

(b) Commits any act of dishon-esty, fraud, or deceit whereby another isinjured or whereby the licensee benefited.

(c) Misrepresents any materialfact in obtaining a license.

(d) A licensee accredited by theAmerican Society of Crime LaboratoryDirectors/Laboratory AccreditationBoard [or should it read exempt fromregulation pursuant to 100702] has hadits accreditation suspended or revokedby the Proficiency Review Committee ofthe American Society of Crime Labora-tory Directors/Laboratory AccreditationBoard.

��

��

Be sure to check our new feature—

It’ll have youlaughing underoath!

(Inside back cover.)

15

AAFS Reno: AAFS Reno: AAFS Reno: AAFS Reno: AAFS Reno: Jackpot of a meetingJackpot of a meetingJackpot of a meetingJackpot of a meetingJackpot of a meeting

The theme was “Truth or Con-sequences” at the 52nd annualmeeting of the American Academyof Forensic Sciences. The setting wasthe city of Reno, Nevada, with itssnow-capped mountains visiblefrom the windows of the JohnAscuaga’s Nugget Hotel and Ca-sino. Members could be seen tour-ing the exhibits, catching up withcolleagues and participating in lively

discussions at themany papers andposter sessions thatwere offered. Some at-tendees even triedtheir luck at the slotmachines or tablegames. Hope their luckwas better than mine!

The CAC alsoheld their interimboard of director ’smeeting on the Satur-day following theAAFS. (top right)

Calico Press


��

��

��

��

A participant in a recent discus-sion on the web asked recently:

How would you define what acriminalist is, or, how would you state thejob description for a criminalist? I findmyself almost exclusively in the lab, ana-lyzing primarily drug and fingerprintevidence. I teach a course in forensic sci-ence to undergraduates, primarily non-science majors. I thought it would be in-teresting to hear the various interpreta-tions of “criminalists” from participantson this list, in order to “flesh out” a pre-sentation of the textbook definitions.

—Joy P.

Dave H. wrote: Could this besummarized as: California defines acriminalist as “any forensic scientistwho is not a pathologist, anthropolo-gist, or odontologist”? The State ofCalifornia “job description” for crimi-nalist is not the ”definintion” of acriminalist or criminalistics, any morethan “slices and dices dead bodies”is the definition of a pathologist. Thejob description follows from a profes-sional definition. One can go to the ABCweb site: www.criminalistics.com/ABC to see the difference. It is also thecase that just because a scientist doesan investigation that will be used in acourtroom, that scientist does not be-come a forensic scientist.

There seems to be a certain ca-chet these days, at least in the mindsof some, to be being called a “foren-sic” whatever. This probably resultsfrom the fact that people hear about“expert witnesses” being involved amulti-gazillion dollar lawsuits, andsome people think that by definingthemselves as a forensic whatever theywill be able to get some of the moneygenerated by the lawsuit industry. Itis also the case that certain employerslike to be able to define their employ-ees are “forensic” whatevers. For ex-ample, forensic DNA analysts or fo-rensic chemists or forensic investiga-tors.

Operating a mass spec in a crimelab, or extracting DNA from a bloodsample in the Department of Justice’sDNA laboratory, does not make the

person doing that work a forensic any-thing. Any more than me doing thosesame tasks makes me an analyticalchemist or a molecular biologist.Criminalists should, by their educa-tion and training, have an under-standing of the questions and prob-lems that can arise during investiga-tions of incidents that may result insome legal proceeding, and be able todevise scientific experiments to ad-dress the relevant questions arising insuch an investigation. In order to dothat they need to understand law, intheory and in practice and science, intheory and in practice.

The following rather lengthydefinition of criminalist is from theCalif. State Personnel Board Specifi-cation:

Criminalists conduct examina-tions of crime scenes for physicalevidence, and in complex casesmake all types of chemical analysessuch as alcohol determinations,toxicological analyses of foods andbody viscera and fluids; test fordrugs and explosives, and varioustypes of microchemical tests; makethe difficult microscopic, chemical,and serological tests on blood andother physiological fluid stains;identify and compare hair, fibers,soil, paint, glass, buildingmaterials and other substances inforensic cases; make visual,microscopic and other technicalexaminations and comparisons oftool marks, firearms and otherweapons, bullets, cartridge casesand ammunition; make casts; makeand develop photographs andphotomicrographs using black andwhite and color films; use complexmeasuring, recording and testinginstruments and devices; prepareevidence and exhibits and testify incourt as expert witnesses; assistlocal law enforcement officers andprosecutors in analyzing andinterpreting evidence; write reportsand correspondence; give instruc-tion in this field at peace officertraining schools; and provide

forensic research, application,advanced casework, methodologydevelopment, and training to Stateand/or local forensic scientists andlaw enforcement agencies.

According to state personnel,the specification was first establishedin 1964. The series currently consistsof four classifications: Criminalist (ac-tually three ranges A,B,C) SeniorCriminalist, Criminalist Supervisorand Criminalist Manager.

As you can see, the job specifi-cation covers a very wide range of ap-plications. The State of Californiastarted out with the “generalist” ap-proach to the occupation. During thepast several years due to the advent ofmore technology, particularly DNAanalysis, the trend has been towardspecialization. More information maybe obtained through the SPB web sitehttp:///www.spb.ca.gov

Mike E. wrote: Please let meweigh in with a few comments on thesubject. “Criminalist” is in fact a smallsubspecialty of “forensic scientist”,

What is a criminalist?

something akin to the hair on the fo-rensic scientist’s dog’s tail. Wecriminalists would like to think that wedefine the profession, but in fact we areusually excluded (or ignored) duringany general discussions of forensic sci-ence, law and the courts. This was ob-vious in the Carnegie Commission re-ports of 1993 on “Science and Tech-nology in Judicial Decision Making.”

Forensic medicine, medical mal-practice forensic investigations, envi-ronmental forensic science, occupa-tional forensic science, forensic engi-neering and failure analysis, forensicsocial science and several more spe-

17

cialties are each far larger and morewell known than our small world ofcriminal forensic science or“criminalistics.” All of these branchesof forensic science are generally in-volved in tort cases and investigationsthat make our criminal investigationsseem minor in comparison, especiallywhen viewed from the perspectives oftime, social impact, financial gainsand loses, judicial and legislative im-pact and journalistic interest.

The public generally knows ofcriminalistics more for its screw upsthan for its social impact. Some mem-bers of the list would suggest that thesefields and their practitioners are some-how fakes or hangers on or worse.Nothing could be farther from thetruth or the facts. It’s we criminalisticsthat are the trivial topic. In short,“criminalistics” is the practice of fo-rensic science in the narrow environ-ment of criminal law and the criminalcourts, no more, no less.

Prof. J. responded: The ques-tion—definition of criminalist—itisn’t strictly determined. In continen-tal Europe the definition is derivatedfrom the goals and its subjects of dis-cipline called “criminalistics.” In thewidest sense the goals of criminal-istics are: to examine and determinehow the criminal acts are being com-mitted; to determine the methods ofcollecting, finding, physical evidenceand examination, that the criminal acthas been commited; to instruct howon the base of physical evidence findthe criminal offender; to help to findthe most efficient methods for crimeivestigation; to propose efficient meth-ods of conducting crime prevention.

[Years previous] Hans Grosswrote, “The criminalistics is the set ofknowledge needed for the detectionof criminal acts.” In continental Eu-rope you have the criminalistics di-vided into the three parts. Criminaltactics, Criminal technics and Crimi-nal methods. Criminal technics is cor-responding to your concept ofcriminalistcs. The criminalist in Eu-rope is the user of the knowledge ofcriminalistics. To be a criminalist in aEuropean sense you are a crime in-vestigator.

The Third Joint Meeting of the California Association of Criminalistsand the Forensic Science Society is only weeks away! The meeting will bean exciting look at Forensic Science Past, Present and Future from aninternational perspective.

A special field trip is scheduled to the preserved historical site of theresidential fire which destroyed Jack London’s beloved Wolf House. Thishistorical field trip will be followed by a wonderful evening dining in thefamous Carneros viticulture region.

The present state of Forensic Science will be covered in a plenarysession and workshops devoted to current state of the art in arson investiga-tion, presentation software, and DNA. These workshops teach new methodsand new ways of thinking about old problems. Issues of quality control,accreditation and certification will also be addressed and discussed by aninternational group of experts.

The meeting will conclude with a look into the future of ForensicScience and Technology. New paradigms for the new millennium includeintegrated investigative techniques exemplified by the UK’s IntelligenceGathering program, as well as rapidly advancing DNA technologies and amyriad of new trace evidence techniques.

Industrial Light and Magic, the truly magical Marin County, Californiacorporation responsible for so much of the technology which transports ourimaginations in movie theaters all over the world, will join us for an intellec-tual flight into the new millennium on the final day of our meeting.

We’ve planned a lavish banquet, sure to be over-subscribed, so don’tlose out by being late to reserve your tickets! We expect to be short ofseating for this much anticipated evening. Last minute reservations cannotbe accommodated. Because of limited seating we have not included banquettickets in the meeting registration price. You must reserve your space as aseparate item on the meeting registration form provided.

Embassy Suites can be reached by phone at 707 253 9540, by FAX at 707253 9202. See our website for more information at http://www.serological.com/seri12.htm

A Joint Meeting in theWine CountryMay 8—12


How can the percentages of blended fibers be determined?Q & A:Q:

A:

I am wondering about blended fibers. If you examine a fibersample and discover that it is made up of two strands wound aroundeach other, you must examine each strand. Say you discover that oneis polyester and the other cotton. How do you determine the percent-age, like you usually see on clothing tags, e.g. 65% cotton/polyester?

—Melissa

The structure of the fabric and the structure of the yarnand thread are important because the distribution of fiber typesmay not be uniform. The first step is to examine the weave ofthe fabric to determine how many types of yarns or threadsare used and to obtain samples of each. Don’t forget the threadthat is used to stitch the garment (or other fabric item) to-gether. This would not count towards the fiber content ratioof the fabric, but would be important if stitching thread couldbe the source of transferred fibers or bits of thread found onother items.

The next step is to examine each yarn to determine howmany types of threads make up the yarn, and take samples ofeach. Then, determine how many types of fibers each threadcomprises, and how they are arranged. For example, somefibers blends are twisted together in the spinning process, someare simply placed together in untwisted bundles, and somefibers of one type are spun around or arranged in bundlesaround a core of different fiber type. For example, cotton fibersare often spun around a polyester core in clothing fabric, andouter cordage fibers can be arranged around a core of differenttype.

If the difference in composition is due to different poly-mer types in the fiber itself, a chemical separation would prob-ably be required. (However, see below.) Most of the time thedifferent polymer types are, in fact, found in separate fibers.

If an approximate determination only is required, I wouldtry some sort of cross-sectioning technique, assume that thecross-sectional area ratio would approximate the weight ratio,and do some geometry to obtain the cross-sectional area ratio.

I have not run across this in the literature but would do a searchif I needed to do this. If I did not find anything suitable to mysample I would do the foregoing. It wouldn’t be a bad idea tovalidate this by comparing it with results from physical orchemical separations on a known piece of fabric.

If some of the fibers have a bi-component polymer struc-ture and others do not, a combined approach should work.Determine the ratio using the bi-component as a single unit,then re-calculate the ratio after determining the ratio of thecomponents in the bi-component.

Sometimes polymers of different composition are co-extruded or heat-bonded together, producing fibers that arebi-lobal or multi-lobal. If you can tell the difference betweenthe lobes microscopically so as to know which is which, or ifthey can be differentially stained, you might then apply cross-sectional techniques similar to those described above, to theratio of the lobes. If you use differential staining, do some teststo find out if the staining causes swelling in the fibers. If it does,you would not be able to use the cross-sectional technique withstained fibers. One occasionally sees bi-component fibers witha sheath-core structure. In theory it should be possible to deter-mine the ratio of sheath and core (using the difference in diam-eter to calculate the different area of each). However, I thinkthat in practice, it would be difficult to get accurate enoughmeasurements of the much thinner sheath to produce reliablefigures, and any small errors in the assumption that volume/area ratios approximate weight ratios would be exaggeratedwhen one measurement (sheath thickness, or the differencebetween measured core diameter and measured fiber diam-eter) is much larger than the other.

—Chesterene CwiklikCwiklik & Associates

2400 6th Avenue South #257Seattle, WA 98134

(206)623-3637

�� it’s just about us

Coming Soon:You’ll be able to order books about

forensic science through www.cacnews.org

and help the CAC earn money to offset the cost of the website!

19

I

Quality Quality Quality Quality Quality AssurAssurAssurAssurAssurededededed

JOHN�!��

Accredita-tion is not

an easything for

anyone in-volved in it.

A Few Viewpoints on Quality Assurance

I had not realized I was going touse two full pages of the newsletter inthe last edition and I greatly appreciateyou allowing me to monopolize some ofyour valuable time. For this issue, I wantto share a couple of frequently expressedviewpoints within the QA network.

These are the issues:1) QA is perceived as punitive, or

much like the internal affairs of crim-inalistics. What we would like for youto understand is that quality assurancemanagers have a job to do which is moni-toring and measuring compliance withASCLD/LAB and self-imposed stan-dards. This means making correctionswhen compliance falls short. It meansdocumenting situations when our qual-ity falters. It means having to evaluateexaminers who are highly trained,skilled, and confident in their own skillsand abilities. I will speak more to thisissue at the close of this article.

2) Despite years of experiencewith accreditation, one of the most com-mon downfalls of laboratories that weas QA managers continue to see is in-sufficient or improper case packet mark-ing. QA managers everywhere implorethe reviewers at every level to get toughon case numbers or improper strikeouts. This is an essen-tial criteria that should not be missed and yet persists inplaguing all of us.

Thank you. We had to get that off ourchest.

Now, more about the issue of a pu-nitive perception of quality assurance.Quality assurance managers want toremind everyone that they are in placefor help and support. Their job is to au-dit, monitor, help find ways to do some-thing better, and to suggest correctiveactions when necessary. It is under-standable that whenever someone looksover our shoulder to see how we are do-ing, some of us can get a little defensive.Each of us has an ego that is fed withyears of experience, training, and ourown confidence in our skills and abili-ties.

There is nothing wrong with egos.QA managers need to be sensitive tothese feelings. Laboratory examinersneed to be understand that quality as-surance managers have to do their job.Accreditation is not an easy thing foranyone involved in it. So let’s do it right.Let’s do it together.

Thank you. We have been want-ing to say this for a long time.


John Houde/Calico PressFire ScenesUnder the watchful eye of Dr. John DeHaan (in base-

ball cap), participants in last month’s “Advanced ArsonInvestigation” class set fires with and without accelerants.The week-long class was hosted by the Ventura County

Fire Dept.’s Arson Investigation Unit and featured a dayof supervised burning in addition to the classroom lec-tures. Assisting Dr. DeHaan were Monty McGill, SafaEgilmez (lower left) and attorney Doug Wood.

21

&�� "�� 6,��+��The topic of report phraseology

has been discussed at length in this fo-rum on previous occasions. I wish I hadan archive to refer to—but it’s an impor-tant subject. The list membership keepschanging, so it’s well worth raising again,and who knows, perhaps there will besome new insight.

The phrase “consistent with”should never, ever, be used alone. Theexample I always give to trainees is thatif I bought a lottery ticket yesterday forlast night’s draw, I can fairly state “Mypurchase is consistent with my now be-ing a millionaire.” We all know that amuch more likely outcome is that “Mypurchase is consistent with my havingwasted a dollar.” The problem of courseis that an unqualified “consistent with”statement carries no weight. That leavesthe interpretation to the reader, which isappallingly dangerous. The same can besaid of other ways of phrasing conclu-sions, but for some reason ”consistentwith” seems particularly open to vary-ing interpretations. My organization hastaken the safest course, which is to ban itentirely from the forensic report writingvocabulary. It’s a weasel word, and wea-sel words are the enemy of accurate re-port writing.

My personal view is that “consis-tent with” may sometimes be acceptable,BUT only if alternative scenarios aregiven with some weight attached. Anexample might read in part: “The paintfound at the accident scene is indistin-guishable from the paint from the sus-pect vehicle in its colour, layer sequence,and chemical composition. This findingis consistent with the paint at the scenehaving come either from the suspect ve-hicle, or from another vehicle paintedwith the same combination of layers.Such vehicles would include many tur-quoise blue automobiles manufacturedby General Motors between 1992 and 1995and still having the original manu-facturer’s finish.” In a perfect world onewould have information on how manysuch vehicles there are, and what percent-age of the vehicles on the road they rep-resented at the accident location.

Much the same objection appliesto phrases such as “could have comefrom” and “similar to” which also carryno weight, unless further qualified withinformation as to what ELSE it could havecome from and what ELSE it might besimilar to.

Brian D.

(�� +�!� �� 7�� 8��Reading through some of Kirk’s

work this evening I rediscovered a pas-sage that bears sharing on this issue,which is really one of identification:

”In the examination and interpre-tation of physical evidence, the distinc-tion between identification and indi-viduation must always be clearly made,to facilitate the real purpose of thecriminalist: to determine the identity ofsource. That is, two items of evidence,one known and the other unknown, mustbe identified as having a commonorigin. On the witness stand, thecriminalist must be willing to admitthat absolute identity is impossible toestablish. Identity of source, on the otherhand, often may be established un-equivocally, and no witness who hasestablished it need ever back down in theface of cross-examination.

It is precisely here that thegreatest caution must be exercised. Theinept or biased witness may readilytestify to an identity, or to a type ofidentity, that does not actually exist.This can come about because of hisconfusion as to the nature of identity,his inability to evaluate the results ofhis observations, or because his generaltechnical deficiencies preclude meaning-ful results...

To sum up: accurate identificationmust rest on a proper basis of training,experience, technical knowledge, andskill, and an understanding of thefundamental nature of identity itself. Itshould not be attempted without thiskind of background, either by the policeofficer or the amateur. Highly experi-enced professional identification menmake errors and overlook many signifi-cant matters. How much worse the

situation would be if every police officeror amateur were to attempt the sameidentifications, merely because they hadan interest in the matter and an opportu-nity to indulge their desires!”

—Paul Kirk & Thornton, J. (Ed.),Criminal Investigation, 2nd Ed., (JohnWiley & Sons, 1974), p.15

And, without question, opportu-nity abounds on discussion lists such asthis. Of significance, Kirk goes on to sayon the next page that “...the amount ofexperience is unimportant beside thequestion of what has been learned fromit.”

In some cases, forensic scientistshave by their experience learned to becautious and withhold qualification fromreports containing equivocal identifica-tion language such as “consistent with.”One can only speculate as to the reasons.In others, they have learned to use thesame terminology only with the appro-priate qualifications.

In my own report writing, I willnot offer any opinions without also pro-viding the facts upon which they arebased and sufficient qualifications as topotential interpretations. I have alsolearned that it is wisest to treat every re-port as though it is a potential forensicreport— the distinguishing feature ofsuch a document being that it is preparedwith the expectation that it may be usedin court and read by someone other thana colleague.

To give any opinions without a fac-tual foundation is not a legitimate scien-tific or forensic practice. As someonemuch wiser than I has said ad naseum,“If there is no science, there can be noforensic science.”

Brent E. Turvey

Brent E. Turvey, MS is a forensic sci-entist, criminal profiler, and a full partner ofKnowledge Solutions, LLC. He is the authorof “Criminal Profiling: An Introduction toBehavioral Evidence Analysis.” He can bereached for comment or consultation at:Knowledge Solutions, 1961 Main St., PMB221, Watsonville, CA 95076; Phone (831)786-9238; www.corpus-delicti.com. His com-ments are reprinted by permission.

Weasel Words II: Further Insight into the “Similar toand Consistent With” Dilemma


1-800-507-book

www.calicopress.com

“. . . this is the best book I’veever seen on criminalistics. Itis a joy to read . . .”

—Dr. Walter C. McCroneAuthor, Judgement Day for the Turin Shroud

(CAC Members Only)S E R O L O G YS E R O L O G YS E R O L O G YS E R O L O G YS E R O L O G Y / DNA / DNA / DNA / DNA / DNA

S 1 Elec t rophores i s Bas i c sE le c t rophores i s Bas i c sE le c t rophores i s Bas i c sE le c t rophores i s Bas i c sE le c t rophores i s Bas i c s—Linhart • G ly cogenated Vag ina l Ep i the-Gly cogenated Vag ina l Ep i the-Gly cogenated Vag ina l Ep i the-Gly cogenated Vag ina l Ep i the-Gly cogenated Vag ina l Ep i the-l i al i al i al i al i a —Jones • Erythrocyte Acid Phosphatase — Rickard • Phosphoglucomutase —White / M. HongS 2 ImmunologyImmunologyImmunologyImmunologyImmunology — StockwellS 3 Gm / KmGm / KmGm / KmGm / KmGm / Km —Stockwell / WraxallS 4 Pept idase APept idase APept idase APept idase APept idase A — YamauchiS 5 A B OA B OA B OA B OA B O — ThompsonS 6 Sa l i vaSa l i vaSa l i vaSa l i vaSa l i va —Spear (incl DNA Kelly-Frye/Howard Decision)S 7 Presumpt . Tes t s /Spec ies / PCR In t roPresumpt . Tes t s /Spec ies / PCR In t roPresumpt . Tes t s /Spec ies / PCR In t roPresumpt . Tes t s /Spec ies / PCR In t roPresumpt . Tes t s /Spec ies / PCR In t ro—Peterson/MayoS 8 Gc subGc subGc subGc subGc sub—Devine/NavetteS 9 Sta t i s t i c sS ta t i s t i c sS ta t i s t i c sS ta t i s t i c sS ta t i s t i c s—M. StammS 1 0 Haptog lob inHaptog lob inHaptog lob inHaptog lob inHaptog lob in — D. HongS 1 1 P o p u l a t i o n G e n e t i c s & S t a t i s t i c s C o u r s eP o p u l a t i o n G e n e t i c s & S t a t i s t i c s C o u r s eP o p u l a t i o n G e n e t i c s & S t a t i s t i c s C o u r s eP o p u l a t i o n G e n e t i c s & S t a t i s t i c s C o u r s eP o p u l a t i o n G e n e t i c s & S t a t i s t i c s C o u r s e—Bruce WeirS 1 2 M i c r oM i c r oM i c r oM i c r oM i c r o . . . . . E x a m . o f S e x A s s a u l t E v i d e n c e E x a m . o f S e x A s s a u l t E v i d e n c e E x a m . o f S e x A s s a u l t E v i d e n c e E x a m . o f S e x A s s a u l t E v i d e n c e E x a m . o f S e x A s s a u l t E v i d e n c e —JonesS 1 3 DNA WorkshopDNA WorkshopDNA WorkshopDNA WorkshopDNA Workshop — — — — — Spring 1993

CRIME SCENECRIME SCENECRIME SCENECRIME SCENECRIME SCENEC 1 Bloodspat te r Lec tureB loodspat te r Lec tureB loodspat te r Lec tureB loodspat te r Lec tureB loodspat te r Lec ture —KnowlesC 2 Bloodspat te r Lec tureB loodspat te r Lec tureB loodspat te r Lec tureB loodspat te r Lec tureB loodspat te r Lec ture — ChisumC 3 Cr ime Scene Inves t iga t ion Sympos iumCr ime Scene Inves t iga t ion Sympos iumCr ime Scene Inves t iga t ion Sympos iumCr ime Scene Inves t iga t ion Sympos iumCr ime Scene Inves t iga t ion Sympos ium—Fall ’88 CAC

G E N E R A L I N T E R E S TG E N E R A L I N T E R E S TG E N E R A L I N T E R E S TG E N E R A L I N T E R E S TG E N E R A L I N T E R E S TG 1 ABC News 9/23/91: “Lab Errors”G 2 48 Hours 9/25/91: “Clues”G 3 Founder’s Lecture: Stuart Kind— Fall ’93G 4 Founder’s Lecture: Walter McCrone—Spr ’90G 5 Founder’s Lecture: J. Osterburg—Fall ’91G 6 Founder’s Lecture: Lowell Bradford—Spr ’93G 7 OJ Simpson Tonight Show ClipsG 8 “Against All Odds—Inside Statistics”

ALCOHOL / TOXICOLOGYALCOHOL / TOXICOLOGYALCOHOL / TOXICOLOGYALCOHOL / TOXICOLOGYALCOHOL / TOXICOLOGYA 1 Forensic Alcohol Supervisor’s Course—DOJ

T R A C E E V I D E N C ET R A C E E V I D E N C ET R A C E E V I D E N C ET R A C E E V I D E N C ET R A C E E V I D E N C ET 1 Bas i c Mi c ros copy Lec tureBas i c Mi c ros copy Lec tureBas i c Mi c ros copy Lec tureBas i c Mi c ros copy Lec tureBas i c Mi c ros copy Lec ture—————E. RhodesT 2 T i re Impress ions as Ev idenceT i re Impress ions as Ev idenceT i re Impress ions as Ev idenceT i re Impress ions as Ev idenceT i re Impress ions as Ev idence—NauseT 3 Eva luat ion o f Lamp F i lament Ev idenceEva luat ion o f Lamp F i lament Ev idenceEva luat ion o f Lamp F i lament Ev idenceEva luat ion o f Lamp F i lament Ev idenceEva luat ion o f Lamp F i lament Ev idence—BradfordT 4 FTIR Lec tureFTIR Lec tureFTIR Lec tureFTIR Lec tureFTIR Lec ture—MooreheadT 5 Gunshot Res idue Lec tureGunshot Res idue Lec tureGunshot Res idue Lec tureGunshot Res idue Lec tureGunshot Res idue Lec ture—CallowayT 6 F o o t w e a rF o o t w e a rF o o t w e a rF o o t w e a rF o o t w e a r — B o d z i a kT 7 Footwear Mfg . TourFootwear Mfg . TourFootwear Mfg . TourFootwear Mfg . TourFootwear Mfg . Tour —Van’s ShoesT 8 Glas s MethodsGlas s MethodsGlas s MethodsGlas s MethodsGlas s Methods—Bailey / Sagara / RhodesT 9 F iber Ev idenceF iber Ev idenceF iber Ev idenceF iber Ev idenceF iber Ev idence—Mumford/Bailey/ThompsonT 1 0 Trace Ev idence Ana ly s i sTrace Ev idence Ana ly s i sTrace Ev idence Ana ly s i sTrace Ev idence Ana ly s i sTrace Ev idence Ana ly s i s—Barnett/Shaffer/Springer

F I R E A R M SF I R E A R M SF I R E A R M SF I R E A R M SF I R E A R M SF 1 Forens i c F i rearms Ev idenceForens i c F i rearms Ev idenceForens i c F i rearms Ev idenceForens i c F i rearms Ev idenceForens i c F i rearms Ev idence —HaagF 2 Wound Ba l l i s t i c s Wound Ba l l i s t i c s Wound Ba l l i s t i c s Wound Ba l l i s t i c s Wound Ba l l i s t i c s: “Deadly Effects”—Jason

Please address requests toElizabeth Thompson, Orange Co. Sheriff’s Dept.Sheriff-Coroner Laboratory320 N. Flower St., Santa Ana, CA 92703(714) 834-4510 voice (714) 834-4519 FAX

Or FAX this ad with your selections circled above.(Be sure to include your name and address)

23

The Sceptical WitnessBy Stuart Kind

Hodology, Ltd., $45.00ISBN: 0 9533987 0 6

A damn good read!This is a book which defies categorization. It is not a

biography, yet it describes the life and career of an interna-tionally prominentforensic scientist. It isnot a forensic sci-ence reference work,yet it contains infor-mation of value toforensic scientists. Itis not a philosophyof science textbook,yet it outlines a phi-losophy of forensicscience (that of theauthor) whichshould be studied byaspiring forensic sci-entists. What is itthen? Simply, adamn good read!

In the Forward,PD James (an in-spired choice by, pre-

sumably, the author) makes the following observation: “—but only too often books by experts fail to satisfy becausethose with knowledge aren’t good at communicating it,and those who write well have less knowledge. This cer-tainly isn’t true of Stuart Kind.” “Eloquent” is a word rarelyused to describe the writings of foren-sic scientists, but it leaps immediatelyto mind for the reader of ScepticalWitness. His experience as the firsteditor of the Journal of the ForensicScience Society (an organization ofwhich he was a founder) “stimulatedand maintained my interest in lan-guage,” the results of which are evi-dent on almost every page. Readerswill want to keep a pen and notepadhandy while reading this book as theywill find themselves encounteringphrases, thoughts and ideas through-out that they will want to remember.

Some examples: “I frequently di-gress. Controlled digression is a goodantidote to the tedious daily necessityto consider most things in place andsequence.” (p 4) In describing an inci-

B o o k R e v i e wD O U G L U C A Sdent in his youthful wartime service in the Home Guardin which he learned to pick a lock (for reasons of hungerrather than national security), he states “This minor pieceof knowledge joined the other mental miscellany whichhelped form my intellectual equipment when I became aforensic scientist.” (p 43) He goes on to expound on howthis experience later on prompted him to require his labo-ratory staff who dealt with safe breaking cases to learnhow to open safes (without benefit of the key or the combi-nation) and for those who worked arson cases to actuallylearn how to throw a petrol bomb.

What forensic scientist other than Stuart Kind couldcreate the phrase “—forensically antediluvian fumblings—” (p 106) to describe for today’s scientists the techniques ofyesteryear, or would describe himself thus: “A generoushelping of indolence mixed with a tendency to day-dream,is a powerfully blunting influence on a will to succeed.”(p 171)

For forensic scientists seeking hints on better waysto do things, there is little in this book to attract them.However, for those who are looking for a rational for do-ing them at all (or not) there is a surfeit of intellectual fod-der. They will find that it is important to not only demon-strate that the compositions of two paint samples are thesame but that one must “—show not only the whole pic-ture but also the canvas upon which it is painted.” (p 11)Institutional mandarins should take heed that “Imagina-tive ideas are seldom seeded, or fostered by the committeeprocess.” (p 208) and most of us can take comfort that“Human relationships are such that malice extended to-wards any particular individual is seldom unshared.” (p72)

This eclectic collection of anecdotes of Stuart Kind’schildhood, education, war service and distinguished ca-reer in forensic science is liberally spiced with scientifictid bits, philosophy, thoughts and ideas resulting in a re-past to appeal to virtually any palate. The Sceptical Wit-ness should satisfy the most sceptical reader.

To subscribe, send a message to:[email protected] this request in the messagebody:subscribe forensend

Join, lurk, or flame, it's guaranteednever to be dull!

Join��

The world of forensicscience is rapidly changing—stay in touch by subscribingto the “Forensic Listserver.”Completely free, this mes-sage board is always buzzingwith hot topics about certification,use of canine detection methods,DNA technical questions, crimescene processing methods andeven requests from TV producersfor broadcast ideas.

Read what your peers saywhen they argue about nationalstandards, or just argue.

Connecting to: Forens-l discussions


Reference Ammunition forGunshot Residue Testing

Lucien C. Haag*

Keywords: gunshot residue, GSR, propellants, gun pow-der, powder pattern, powder particles, stippling, tattooing,soot, standard ammunition, reference ammunition

�/�� Custom made reference ammunition in several common

calibers has been developed as a proposed standard for evalu-ating target materials for powder patterning and well as forevaluating and inter-comparing the effects of various firearms-related parameters on GSR production such as barrel length,groove depth, rifling system and cylinder gap spacing in re-volvers. Loadings with both ball and flake propellants havebeen developed which produce particles of partially burnedpropellant upon discharge in commonly encounter firearmsand with pressures typically less than factory ammunition ofthe same caliber, type and bullet weight.

4��One of the difficulties with any effort to compare various

media for gunshot residue (GSR) patterns or even to check theperformance of some standardized medium employed by anagency or examiner is the lack of some consistent, reproduciblesource of ammunition. Efforts to study the various effects onsoot deposition, stippling and/or powder patterns as a conse-quence of gun design, barrel length, bore diameter, land andgroove count, cylinder gap space and possibly other param-eters of interest are also complicated by the lack of referenceammunition designed for such purpose. The use of some com-mon form of commercial ammunition does not offer a solutionto this problem. It is relatively well known that manufacturersof commercial ammunition load their products to pressure andvelocity requirements with an additional eye toward cost andefficient performance of the propellant. This may and oftendoes mean that one lot of a very common round such as 115 gr.9mm Luger FMJ-RN by company "X" will be loaded with "Y"amount of an unperforated disk-flake powder and some sub-sequent lot will be found to be loaded with "Z" grains of flat-tened ball powder. Both loadings will produce the same nomi-nal muzzle velocity from a particular test gun but will leavedecidedly different powder patterns at the same standoff dis-tance.

Even if the examiner can find out what specific propellantwas used by the manufacturer for a particular product's lotnumber, the propellant may not be a canister powder and there-fore not available for handloading purposes. This will immedi-ately defeat efforts to assemble equivalent cartridges.

This paper describes the development of several stan-dard rounds in popular calibers which can be assembled by anylaboratory equipped with some basic ammunition reloadingtools and subsequently used for GSR production, research, per-formance testing, GSR media evaluation and comparisons.

��[Cartridge and Components Selection]The two most common physical forms of smokeless pow-

der encountered in case work involving handguns areunperforated disk-flake powder (e.g.- Bullseye, Unique) or flat-tened ball powders. A successful search for suitable sources ofeach of these forms was carried out. The rationale for theultimate choices will be described later in this paper.

Commercial ammunition companies are not only veryinterested in pressure and velocity requirements but are alsointerested in selecting powders that are efficient and cost effec-tive in fulfilling the mission of propelling a particular projectilefrom a standard test barrel within certain peak pressure andvelocity (P&V) requirements. The writer's mission was some-what different. I did not want maximum safe velocity and pres-sure nor optimum propellant efficiency. In fact, I wanted thepropellant to be somewhat inefficient and below industry stan-dards for P&V. A less than efficient propellant was sought sothere would be numerous partially-burned and unburned pow-der particles expelled from the muzzle for close-range powderpattern production. Somewhat less than normal peak pres-sures were deemed desirable since there might be some con-cern on the part of forensic practitioners regarding the possi-bility of over working or even damaging reference or evidenceguns with hand loaded ammunition. A search for suitable pro-pellants that would either fill or nearly fill the available space inthe cartridge was also deemed desirable to minimize any effectof propellant charge position in the cartridge case at the time ofdischarge. Cartridges and components that are readily avail-able and common were also of considerable importance.

For the foregoing reasons and purposes, virgin Winches-ter cases and Winchester primers were chosen in 9mm Luger,38 Special and 45 Automatic. Speer total metal jacketed (TMJ)bullets in 115 gr., 158 gr. and 230 gr. weights respectively wereselected not because the writer has some criticism of Winches-ter bullets but for the reasons that Winchester bullets as reload-ing components are less common than the Speer product line.Furthermore, the TMJ-type bullet was deemed desirable sothat any lead in the gunshot residue deposits would be fromprimer and not from the lead of an open-based bullet or fromany exposed lead tip of a jacketed soft point bullet.

Alliant (formerly Hercules) Blue Dot powder was selectedfor the disk-flake propellant. This is a common and readilyobtainable double based propellant of very fixed morphologythat has been on the market since 1972. Its dark gray particlesare about 0.011 to 0.015" thick and have diameters of 0.055 to0.062". Current canisters of Alliant's Blue Dot (manufactured in1999) describes its make up as nitrocellulose, nitroglycerin, diphe-nylamine, ethyl centralite, rosin and polyester. Blue Dot is alsoa relatively slow burning powder in these cartridge/bulletweight combinations. A sample of this powder on an 1/10 inchgrid is shown in Photograph 1.

Matters are not quite so simple with flattened ball pow-ders. They are typically a blend of particle sizes which havebeen formulated on the basis of chemical composition, particlesize distribution and morphology to fulfill a performance speci-fication. As a result of these multiple parameters the actualphysical form of the individual particles will not only vary in aparticular production run (lot number of powder) but may alsovary to an even more noticeable degree between different vin-tages (or sources) of a product bearing the same name. Accu-rate Powder Company's products are an example. Samples ofAccurate Number 5 and Accurate Number 7 purchased by this*Forensic Science Services, Carefree, AZ

25

writer in the 1980s (manufactured in Israel by IMI) can be seento be somewhat different than the current (1998-1999) samplesmanufactured in the Czech Republic by Synthesia, a.s.- a divi-sion of Explosia. Photograph 2A and 2B illustrate this differencefor Accurate Number 7.

The current form of Accurate No. 7 (manufactured in theCzech Republic) was chosen over canister ball powders manu-factured by Primex (formerly Olin) and suitable for 9mm, 38Spl. and 45 Auto because all the currently available Primexpowders were found to be so significantly flattened as to ap-proach a flake powder in morphology. It was the more sphe-roidal shape that was sought by the author for GSR productionby a ball powder. Accurate No. 7 satisfies this requirement.

At this point it might do well to suggest that those read-ers who wish to avail themselves of these proposed standardsand who are concerned about possible future changes in themorphology or availability of these powders would be welladvised to purchase one or two pounds of these products. Ap-proximately 800 rounds of ammunition in these calibers can beloaded from a 1 pound canister of these propellants.

[Standardized Loads for GSR Production]The 9mm Luger cartridge was viewed as the most com-

mon and useful cartridge for the purpose of GSR production,testing and comparisons no matter where the reader might beemployed. The only deficiency would be tests of cylinder gapdischarge associated with revolvers consequently 38 Spl. load-ings were also developed.

The virgin Winchester 9mm Luger cases were primedwith Winchester WSP small pistol primers and 8.0 grain chargesof Alliant Blue Dot and Accurate Number 7. The Speer 115 gr.TMJ bullets were seated to give an overall cartridge length of1.15 inches. Average velocities of these two loadings fired froma Ruger P85 pistol with a 4.25 inch, 6-right barrel and measuredat 10 feet beyond the muzzle with a Pact chronograph were1098f/s ± 34f/s (N=5) and 1135 f/s ±20 f/s (N=5) respectively.The temperature and relative humidity at the time of thesetests was 730F and 20% respectively. Paul Szabo (AFTE's Tech-nical Advisor at Olin Corporation) was very helpful in thisproject and provided pressure and velocity data on these tworounds with two test barrels using SAAMI's protocol (4 inchtest barrels, piezoelectric pressure and velocity at 15 feet fromthe muzzle). These data are summarized in Table 1 and Table 2.Representative powder patterns from the previously-describedRuger P85 pistol fired at a standoff distance of 9 inches againstthe filter paper side of Whatman's BenchKote(r) gave a 5.5" to6" diameter pattern with Accurate No. 7 and a 7" to 8" patternwith Blue Dot. These patterns are shown in Figure 1 and 2.Table 3 provides a comparison of powder patterns producedby three common canister powders, Unique, Herco and Win-chester 231, and the proposed reference ammunition wherethe gun, muzzle to target distance and target material wereheld constant.

Although is was felt that the 9mm Luger cartridge wouldbe the most useful cartridge for a standard GSR round, loadswith these same propellants were developed in 38 Special and

45 Auto. As with the 9mm loads, virgin Winchester cases andprimers were used as well as Speer TMJ bullets (158 gr. in 38 Spl.and 230 gr. in 45 Auto) for the same reasons as previouslystated. The 38 Spl. loads used charges of 8.0 gr. and 9.0 gr. ofAlliant Blue Dot and Accurate No. 7 respectively with the Speer158 gr. TMJ bullets seated to the midpoint of the bullet'scannelure giving an overall cartridge length of 1.45 inches(36.8mm). These loads gave an average velocity of 897 f/s ± 38f/s (N=5) for the Blue Dot load and 888 f/s ± 23 f/s (N=5) froma 4 inch Model 15 Smith & Wesson, 5-right revolver with acylinder gap of 0.006 in. (0.15mm) and measured with a Pactchronograph positioned at 15 feet from the muzzle.

Powder patterns on BenchKote positioned 9 inches fromthe muzzle of the 4 inch S&W test gun were prepared and gavea 5 to 6 inch diameter pattern for the Blue Dot load and a 5 to5.5" pattern for the Accurate No. 7 load. Numerous 'pimples'were produced on the plastic backside of both sheets and a fewunburned particles of Blue Dot perforated the BenchKote pa-per. Representative patterns at a 9 inch standoff distance for the38 Special loads are shown in Figure 3 and 4.

The 45 Auto loads consisted of 9.0 grs. of Blue Dot and10.0 grs. of Accurate No. 7 with the Speer 230 gr. TMJ bulletsseated to an overall cartridge length of 1.26 inches (32.0mm).Velocities at 15 feet from a 5 inch Colt Model 1911A1, standard6-left barrel averaged 828 f/s ± 43 f/s (N=5) and 856 f/s ± 33 f/s (N=5) respectively.

Powder patterns on BenchKote positioned at 9 inches aswith the other loads and guns gave a 6 to 6.5 inch diameterpattern for the Blue Dot load and a 5" to 5.5" pattern for theAccurate No. 7 load. Numerous 'pimples' were produced onthe plastic backside of both sheets. Representative patterns at a9 inch standoff distance with the Gov't. 1911A1 .45 Automaticare shown in Figure 5 and 6.

�� !The components and materials outlined in this paper, if

assembled in the same manner, should provide examinersworking in different laboratories with a consistent and repro-ducible source of reference ammunition for powder patternand gunshot residue testing as well as provide a means forinter-comparing testing procedures and results between labo-ratories.

The very essence of any endeavor that purports to bescientific is the ability for independent researchers, scientistsand laboratory examiners to be able to reproduce laboratoryresults. Presently there are several limitations and shortcom-ings insofar as any standard methodology and materials forpowder pattern tests and gunshot residue production. Attemptsto have a standard ammunition based on some commerciallyavailable ammunition are doomed to failure for the reasonsstated in this paper. This article represents a means to obviateone such shortcoming by developing reproducible referenceammunition in three popular calibers for use in GSR proce-dures.


��(,&� *Alliant Blue Dot 9mmP LoadWinchester cases with Winchester standard small pistol primers (product #WSP), lot PDLD392)Speer 115 gr. TMJ bullets of 0.355" diameter (lot G08D) and seated to an overall cartridge length of 1.15"8.0 gr. charges of Alliant Blue Dot (lot Jan 11 '99 99S2LOT 232)

Olin-Winchester results (SAAMI protocol):[barrel 1] [barrel 2]

Vel. at 15' Pressure IBT Vel. at 15' Pressure IBT

1055 242 1.25 1082 245 1.241177 287 1.19 1168 293 1.191102 265 1.23 1119 268 1.231166 296 1.17 1057 249 1.291166 306 1.19 1164 262 1.22

Ave. 1133 279 1.21 1118 263 1.23S.D. 53 26 0.03 49 19 0.04

��(,&� �Accurate No. 7 9mmP LoadWinchester cases with Winchester standard small pistol primers (product #WSP), lot PDLD392)Speer 115 gr. TMJ bullets of 0.355" diameter (lot G08D) and seated to an overall cartridge length of 1.15"8.0 gr. charges of Accurate No. 7 (Czech Republic mfg., lot 27198)

Olin-Winchester results (SAAMI protocol):[barrel 1] [barrel 2]

Vel. at 15' Pressure IBT Vel. at 15' Pressure IBT

1159 298 1.20 1166 326 1.171162 321 1.15 1167 326 1.171164 315 1.16 1173 330 1.151165 320 1.14 1165 305 1.171167 316 1.16 1179 327 1.13

Ave. 1133 314 1.16 1170 323 1.16S.D. 3 9 0.02 6 10 0.02

Note: All tests performed in 4" SAAMI barrels Velocity in feet per second Pressure in psi/100 IBT = Ignition-Barrel Time in milliseconds

27

��(,&� 9

POWDER PATTERN DIAMETER and APPEARANCE vs. PROPELLANT:38 SPL. CARTRIDGES with 158 gr. TMJ BULLETSWINCHESTER STANDARD SMALL PISTOL PRIMERS&W MODEL 15 REVOLVER with 4" BARREL / 0.006" GAPSTAND-OFF DISTANCE HELD CONSTANT at 6 INCHESTARGET MATERIAL: WHATMAN BENCHKOTE - FILTER PAPER SIDE

5.0 grs. CHARGES of UNIQUE, HERCO and WIN. 2318.0 grs of ALLIANT BLUE DOT (Reference Ammunition)9.0 grs. of ACCURATE No. 7 (Reference Ammunition)

Propellant Description Diameter of Powder Pattern Comments

UNIQUE - 4 - 4.5 in. Dense pattern of unburned powder particlesdisk-flake and powder fragments with ca. 1/3" between0.065 x 0.006", the unburned powder particles with pimpling of thedensity = 0.52g/cc BenchKote (B-K) paper.

HERCO - Dense pattern of unburned powder particles,disk-flake 4 - 4.5 in. powder fragments and sooty material;0.065 x 0.005", pimpling and some perforation of the B-K paper.density= 0.60g/cc

WINCHESTER 231 - ca. 3 in. Dense pattern of fine particles and some cracked ball,density = 0.635g/cc soot; average particle size = 0.0255", a few pimples in the

B-K paper.

ALLIANT BLUE DOT - 4 - 4.5 in. Dense pattern of unburned and partially burned disk-0.062-.065 x 0.012-.015" flake powder particles, powder fragments and some sootydensity = 0.73 g/cc material; pimpling and some perforation of the B-K pa-

per

ACCURATE No. 7 3.5 - 4 in. Dense pattern of fine particles with faint soot;density = 1.02g/cc flattened ball (Czech mfg.) very dense pimpling of the B-ave. particle size ?0.019" K paper.(range = 0.007" to 0.033")

Note:Density values are the dry (or bulk) densityParticle size values are taken from Propellant Profiles, Vol. 1, 1st Ed.(1982) except for Czech-manufactured Accurate No. 7which was measured by the author.


��

��

B O A R D O F D I R E C T O R S

��

President:

President-Elect:

Secretary:

Treasurer:

Regional Director:(North)

Regional Director:(South)

MembershipSecretary:

EditorialSecretary:

ImmediatePast President:

Hiram EvansSan Bernardino Co. Sheriff9500 Etiwanda AvenueRancho Cucamonga, CA 91739(909) [email protected]

Lisa BrewerSanta Clara Co. Crime Lab1557 Berger Dr. #B-2San Jose, CA 95112(408) [email protected]

Kevin AnderaOrange County Sheriff’s Dept.320 N. Flower St.Santa Ana, CA 92703(714) [email protected]

Michelle FoxForensic Analytical Specialties3777 Depot Rd. Ste 409Hayward, CA 94545(510) 887-8828 [email protected]

Ann MurphySacramento Co. DA Crime Lab4800 Broadway, Ste 200Sacramento, CA 95820(916) [email protected]

Jim StamSan Diego Police Dept.1401 Broadway MS725San Diego, CA 92101(619) [email protected]

Pennie LafertyOrange County Sheriff’s Dept.320 N. Flower St.Santa Ana, CA 92703(714) [email protected]

Nancy McCombsCaDOJ Fresno6014 N Cedar Ave.Fresno, CA 93710(559) [email protected]

Ron NicholsOakland Police Department455 7th St. Rm 608Oakland, CA 94607(510) [email protected]

— Receive the Journal of the Forensic Science Societyand/or Journal of Forensic Sciences—

— Receive The CAC News —— Lower, Member registration fees at CAC Seminars —

— Receive CAC Membership Roster / Seminar Abstracts —— Receive Salary Survey of Government Labs —

— Membership in a prestigious Forensic Society —

To join, follow these simple steps: 1. Contact the CAC Membership

Secretary, Pennie Laferty (714)834-4510, to obtain an information

packet and application. 2. Fill out and return the application to Pennie

along with your first year’s dues & appl. fee. 3. Two of your listed

references will be contacted. 4. Applicants are screened to ensure that

they meet the requirements. (Outlined in Article 11 of the CAC

Membership Handbook). 5. Your application will be presented to the

Board of Directors at their next quarterly meeting. If approved, your

application will be voted on by the membership at the next Seminar.

nterested inbecoming a member?i

��

��

��

�� !

"#��$��%�#��&��#��

&��

&�'��(��'��"��'

��

��(�)�*��+��(��,#��

�-��

��$��(��(��

The “CAC logo” is a registered service mark of the CAC and its use is restrictedto official communications and by other authorization of the CAC Board.

31

Unusual Methamphetamine LaboratoryOn 4/1/99, I arrived at a suspected methamphetamine labora-

tory in the city of Armpitt, California, where an unusual synthesiscould have taken place. The suspect was barbecuing chicken in theback yard near a swimming pool when the narcotic officers arrivedand upon investigation, revealed the suspect had no finished prod-uct. Actually, there were no obvious precursors present, either.

The guy, however, looked suspicious and since he was bustednear the BBQ area, a bag of charcoal was immediately suspect. Uponmy arrival, I was asked if charcoal could be used to make metham-phetamine and although it would be difficult, I admitted that methdoes contain a lot of carbon atoms and that’s basically what charcoalis—carbon. Theoretically, charcoal could be the precursor of a precur-sor of a precursor of a precursor, etc. If the crankster was using this

approach, I reasoned, hewould also need lots of hydro-gen as well. Any chemistworth his/her sodium chlo-ride knows that water is actu-ally H 2 O and H 2 O has lotsof hydrogen in it. This guyhad a pool full of water. Notethat the BBQ was situated 87.3cm from the pool. Alsoneeded would be nitrogen, ofwhich the air contains about80% or so. The back yard wassurrounded by air. A samplewas taken for analysis.

Finally, chloride wouldbe required for the salt ver-sion of the final product. Al-though there was no pool acid

present, a considerable amount of table salt (sodium chloride) wasfound near some cobs of corn in a salt shaker device in the kitchenarea as well as an additional amount in an ice cream maker. Note thatsmall children were near the ice cream maker, which was activelyprocessing ice cream, when agents arrived.

Other items consistent with clandestine drug manufacture in-cluded coffee filters and a turkey baster (found in the kitchen), ducttape and a dart board (found in the garage), and a 1982 May issue ofPlayboy magazine, featuring Kathy ‘Bubbles’ Tortinni, found in theattic. Limiting reagent turned out to be the charcoal, and if the 5 lbbag as well as the carbon formed from the chicken (which ended upbeing burnt) were fully converted to meth at 100% yields, we werelooking at 6 or 7 lb of final product. Overall reaction goes somethinglike this:

10C + 8H 2 + ½ N 2 + NaCl —> Methamphetamine HCl + NaThe suspect has been in custody for the past 10 months while we

figure out a confirmatory test for carbon, nitrogen, hydrogen, andchloride.

��

��

“While addressing a question onthe stand never start by saying, ‘ to behonest with you.’” -Anonymous

“A piece of gum I thought I success-fully tossed before taking the stand gotstuck to my skirt, my notebook and even-tually the evidence! As you can imagine,the piece of tissue given to me did nothelp matters.”—Jennai Lawson

“I didn’t realize I left the price taghanging from my suit until a jurorpointed it out to me on my way out ofthe courthouse!”—Bill Carlton

Lawyer: “Haven’t you EVER madea mistake?”

Criminalist: “Well, I should havebought real estate a few years back...”

—Darrell Tate as told to John Houde

Lawyer: “What gives you the rightto call the evidence powder chunks in thisreport and white powdery substance inTHAT one?”

Criminalist: “Poetic license!”—John Houde

* * *

If YOU have a Courtroom Calam-ity to share (and the statute of limitationshas expired) please send them to:Nancy McCombs, Editor at:[email protected]

��6�� !6�6�"��0� $��:

w w w . c a c n e w s . o r g

CAC The NewsThe CACNews, ISSN 1525-3090, is published quarterly (January, April, July, and October)...

Documents

Transcript of CAC The NewsThe CACNews, ISSN 1525-3090, is published quarterly (January, April, July, and October)...